BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Bank of Ireland (UK) plc Bill

Bill read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Royal Mail

Michael Connarty: What recent progress he has made on securing private sector investment in Royal Mail.

Edward Davey: As I made clear during the passage of the Postal Services Act 2011, we are taking a staged approach to its implementation. Before decisions can be taken on private sector investment, the regulatory regime must be reformed and the Government must secure approval to take on Royal Mail’s historical pension deficit and restructure its balance sheet. Progress is being made in these areas, alongside Royal Mail’s progress with its modernisation plan.

Michael Connarty: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he therefore tell the House exactly how much the Government value the assets in the Post Office pension fund at this moment, how much will be transferred to the Treasury and what will be left in the assets of the pension fund thereafter?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will know, having been in the House a long time, that we would not make a valuation while working with the European Commission to secure state aid clearance. Until we get that, those sorts of calculations would be completely inappropriate.

Lorely Burt: As part of the deregulation process prior to the sale, we can expect a reasonable rise in stamp prices, which are currently the second lowest in Europe, despite the fact that we have the highest delivery specification. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic
	that the Labour party now criticises us for remedying the problems that it created through its regulation procedures?

Edward Davey: During the passage of the Postal Services Act, we heard a lot of criticism of the regulatory regime that the Labour party put in place. We put in a much stronger regime, which has been greatly welcomed.

Manufacturing

Marcus Jones: What steps he is taking to support manufacturing.

Nigel Mills: What steps he is taking to support manufacturing.

Graham Evans: What steps he is taking to support manufacturing.

Vincent Cable: As part of rebalancing the British economy, we are taking steps to support manufacturing in the UK by encouraging high levels of business, innovation, investment, exports and technical skills. I set out our strategy for achieving that in a talk to Policy Exchange yesterday.

Marcus Jones: From recent discussions with several representatives of our largest manufacturing companies, it is apparent that they are now looking actively to bring more UK supply manufacture back to our country, but they seem to question whether some of our small and medium-sized enterprises have sufficient capacity or investment to meet the growth in demand in this area. What can the Government do to help facilitate the right conditions to help some of our SMEs meet this increasing demand?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a supply chain issue. We are hearing good news from the automobile and aerospace sectors, with the large primes, such as Tata, Rolls-Royce and Airbus, making large investments. However, we also need to attract back the supply chains, which is already happening, particularly in the car industry. We have bodies that co-operate with industry in both those sectors: the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) chairs one of them and I chair the other. We are therefore working actively with industry to attract the supply chains back to the UK.

Nigel Mills: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the work of the high-value manufacturing technology and innovation centre, which has had a display in Parliament for the past two days, and especially a business in my constituency, Advanced Composites, on the work that it does as part of that? Does he agree with the strategy and aims that it has set out, especially on having a strategy for how we can get manufacturing back to being 20% of gross domestic product by 2020?

Vincent Cable: Yes, we are fighting a historical trend, because, under the previous Government, and certainly over the past decade, manufacturing contracted as a share of the economy more rapidly than in any other
	western country and we lost a third of the work force. We have to retrieve that, and one of the main ways of doing so is through promoting innovation. The first innovation centre, as my colleague rightly points out, is the manufacturing technology innovation centre, which has seven campuses. Composites is one of those core technologies being developed, which I very much welcome.

Graham Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are effectively to support manufacturing, we need to ensure that our future work force have the necessary skills? Will he join me in welcoming the approval of Sandymoor free school in my constituency, which is receiving support from the nearby Daresbury science and innovation campus and which will help to achieve this goal?

Vincent Cable: Skills are obviously critical, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will say more about the big increase in the number of apprenticeships shortly. I am sure that the school in my hon. Friend’s constituency will contribute to this at an early stage of development. Apprentices are a real success story and we are certainly going to build on it.

Dennis Skinner: One way to increase manufacturing growth would undoubtedly be for the Business Secretary to turn his attention to Markham Vale. I cadged about £32 million off the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government to flatten the pit tips and build a vast industrial estate straight off junction 29A on the M1, and what has happened? There have been grey, miserable clouds hanging over Markham Vale ever since this tin-pot Government came to power. Why don’t you pull your finger out? We were spending money while the sun was shining; there is none being spent now.

Vincent Cable: I would certainly be happy to visit Markham Vale at some point and talk those things through with the hon. Gentleman. His area has a local enterprise partnership and has had an opportunity to put in a bid for an enterprise zone or the regional growth fund. I do not know what it has done, but I am certainly happy to talk to him.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member and I am sure that he has followed the changes in attitudes towards manufacturing in this House under different Governments. He will be interested in the leader of the Labour party’s new distinction between “predators” and “producers”. What is troubling a lot of us on the Government Benches is why a party of dinosaurs is so opposed to predators. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain.

David Hanson: Companies in my constituency that manufacture construction products, quarry materials for concrete or build materials for the construction industry have very much welcomed the plan announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) to bring forward infrastructure projects in order to increase employment and build manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom. Given falling growth and rising unemployment, would it not be prudent for the Business Secretary to support that plan?

Vincent Cable: Infrastructure is certainly a key to recovery, and it is absolutely right to put it on a sustainable basis. The Chief Secretary announced a programme for urgent modest-scale infrastructure projects a few weeks ago, and other infrastructure projects will be announced in the regional growth fund imminently.

Iain Wright: In answer to questions to his Department in June, the Secretary of State said:
	“There is rapid growth now beginning to take place in manufacturing and exports.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 276.]
	Given that figures from the Office for National Statistics confirm that manufacturing output fell last quarter and given that yesterday’s CBI industrial trends survey showed sentiment from manufacturers deteriorating, order books emptying and export prospects sharply declining for a second successive quarter, will the Minister update his assessment of four months ago? Does he think that any aspect of Government policy needs to change to ensure that manufacturing drives forward economic recovery and growth?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that business conditions are difficult, but over the last two years manufacturing has increased significantly faster than the rest of the economy, as have exports. That is the direction that we need to pursue. Given that manufacturing is predominately an export-based industry, he will understand that the difficulties facing our major export markets in the European Union are creating problems for manufacturers and manufacturing confidence, but we will hit our way through them.

Ian Swales: I thank the Secretary of State for visiting SABIC Petrochemicals in my constituency to hear about the cost issues for energy-intensive manufacturing industries. When can those industries expect an announcement about a mitigation package?

Vincent Cable: I think they expect an announcement very soon. The visit was extremely constructive, and my colleague and others have rightly emphasised to us that energy-intensive industries are a key part of manufacturing recovery. It would be totally counter-productive economically and environmentally if they were driven overseas. We are determined that that should not happen, and a package of measures will be announced soon.

Science Funding

Phil Wilson: What recent assessment he has made of the level of science funding over the comprehensive spending review period.

David Willetts: Funding for science and research programmes has been protected with a flat cash ring-fenced settlement of £4.6 billion for each of the next four years. We can be proud of our scientific research, and that is why the coalition is backing it.

Phil Wilson: Although I welcome the investment in the technology and innovation centres, one of which is in my constituency, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government have continued to cut the science budget by 12% overall when Germany, one of our main competitors, has increased its budget by 8%?

David Willetts: No party at the last election promised complete protection for the BIS budget. In fact, in its last economic statement in December 2009, the hon. Gentleman’s party committed itself to cutting £600 million from the higher education and science and research budgets. We, by contrast, are offering complete cash protection for that budget.

Julian Huppert: The scientists to whom I speak are concerned not only about the amount of money available now but about the levels of capital funding and the long-term security of funding running many years into the future. While I welcome the announcement of funding for companies such as Babraham, what assurances can the Minister provide that he will try to get more capital funding from the Treasury and to ensure good, long-term security so that scientists will know how much funding there will be for the next decade?

David Willetts: Of course, we have been able in the past year to fund six of the eight capital projects that the science community identified as being the most important. We think that that has been a considerable achievement in tough times, and we will continue to try to secure financing for other capital programmes in the future.

Chi Onwurah: The Secretary of State recently said that all long-term economic growth was linked to innovation, yet one year after he claimed to have protected the science budget, the independent Campaign for Science and Engineering has revealed that its budget has been slashed by 12%, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) mentioned. The Minister’s own Department says that cuts to science will damage our world-leading position, yet businesses up and down the country are being denied the innovation support that they need, and the shambles in university funding makes it harder for universities to provide science places. If innovation is the engine of growth, why is the Secretary of State doing so much damage to it?

David Willetts: We in the coalition are absolutely committed to the importance of science and research, and we are strengthening the links between science and research and the business community. We are also offering cash protection for the science budget across all main current expenditure, which the hon. Lady’s party never did in government. The very source that she has just cited, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, only a fortnight ago
	“welcomed Chancellor George Osborne’s announcement that £195m of new investment will be spent on science and engineering.”

Exports

Pauline Latham: What steps he is taking to promote British exports.

Alun Cairns: What steps he is taking to promote British exports.

Vincent Cable: My Department is supporting British exports through UK Trade & Investment. Its strategy, which was launched in May 2011, sets out
	plans to provide practical support to exporters over the next five years. I have undertaken a number of visits overseas to promote British business to countries including China, India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and Romania, and next week I shall be in south-east Asia promoting British trade.

Pauline Latham: Britain is increasingly becoming a centre of excellence for high-tech, high-value manufacturing exports. In Derbyshire, we have some great high-tech exporters ranging from Rolls-Royce, which my right hon. Friend knows all about, to Pektron, an innovative, family-owned electronics manufacturer. What more can my right hon. Friend do to showcase those exceptional firms and remind people up and down the country and internationally that high-tech British goods are in demand everywhere, and that that needs to continue?

Vincent Cable: Yes, there are many successful British exporters. Over the past year, exports have grown on a year-to-year basis by about 9%. Where we have fallen down historically is that British small and medium-sized companies have not been as involved in exporting as the larger enterprises such as Rolls-Royce. One of the main commitments in the UKTI strategy is to concentrate help and resources on those companies, which would undoubtedly help the specialist company in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Alun Cairns: It is good to note that exports have risen to their highest level since records began, and I note the Government’s plans to double our exports to Brazil by 2015. Following the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, what specific action is my right hon. Friend taking to help British exporters to overcome the language issues and bureaucratic barriers that might stand in the way of achieving that?

Vincent Cable: I went to Brazil precisely to answer that question. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we are starting from a weak position. As a result of neglect in the past, Britain’s share of imports into Brazil is far lower than those of Germany, France and Italy, for example, and we must remedy that. We are putting in a major effort in Brazil, through UKTI, to capture some of the opportunities, particularly those that are arising from the expansion of the oil and gas industries there.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State has mentioned some exotic locations, but he did not mention the fact that he came to Huddersfield two weeks ago. Did he learn from that visit that export manufacturing is at the heart of getting the biggest bang for our buck, and that manufacturing for export counts for more in regard to the balance of trade? He talks about innovation and universities, but we do not want just seven—we want 133 innovation units.

Vincent Cable: As a Yorkshireman myself, I would hesitate to call Huddersfield an overseas market, but it is certainly an outstanding centre of excellence. I enjoyed my visit there. We visited David Brown, one of the recipients of regional growth fund money and a very successful manufacturing exporter. I would also commend going further up the valley to Todmorden, where there is a brilliant British casting and forging company working flat out in our major export markets.

Jonathan Edwards: UKTI has no presence in Wales, so what discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Welsh Government to ensure that UKTI is doing its best to promote Welsh exports?

Vincent Cable: Of course the Welsh Government, as a devolved Government, have more responsibilities of their own in this field, but Wales is part of the UK and I will do my best to work with my Welsh Government colleagues to promote exports. I have already talked to the Secretary of State about getting more Welsh businesses represented on UKTI missions and on projects of that kind.

Regional Growth Fund

Ian Lavery: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the regional growth fund.

Vincent Cable: In April we announced that 50 bids had been successful as part of round 1 of the regional growth fund, receiving a conditional allocation of £450 million, which will deliver 27,000 new or safeguarded jobs and close to 100,000 jobs in supply chains. More than half these projects have already started, and successful bidders will receive funding as due diligence is completed. Announcements on the second larger round are imminent.

Ian Lavery: There have been conflicting reports about the Department’s performance on the regional growth fund and what has been settled as a result of it. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many applications have come from Northumberland, how many of them have been successful and how many have received any form of payment to date?

Vincent Cable: I cannot tell him off the cuff how many companies in Northumberland have received regional growth fund money. I know that the north-east was the most substantial recipient in the first round. I believe that several—in fact, the majority—of those projects are proceeding, and they will create jobs in Northumberland.

Richard Bacon: We in South Norfolk were very pleased to see the Secretary of State visiting Group Lotus, one of the country’s highest technology companies, which he described as “the best of British”. Does he agree that the regional growth fund would be seen as even more effective if Lotus’s high-quality bid were successful?

Vincent Cable: I think my colleague is disarmingly tempting me to commit some indiscretion here. I have been to Lotus, but we did not discuss the regional growth fund bid. It is an outstanding company, and I am certainly aware that it has put in a bid.

Gordon Marsden: Well, why do we not put the bunting out? Six months after 45 regional growth fund bids were submitted, only three have got the money, so there are only 42 to go. Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell us how many people in BIS it takes to change a light bulb. However, on 17 October,
	the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) assured
	The Times
	that due diligence on the bids had taken an average of six weeks. These bids have all been waiting six months. Will the Secretary of State tell us when the bidders will get their promised money, as all these continued growth prospects have been put at risk because his Department has been asleep at the wheel?

Vincent Cable: I definitely think we should put the bunting out for the regional growth fund. As I explained in my first answer to this question, more than half of all these projects are now under way. Factories have been built; jobs have been created—that is what it is about. As was made clear at the outset and as Lord Heseltine made clear a few days ago, the release of funding is a later stage in the process when due diligence has been completed. Are the Labour Front-Bench team seriously arguing that we should dispense with controls over the spending of public money in the private sector? I know they did that in government, but we are not going to do it.

Manufacturing Skills

Stuart Andrew: What steps his Department is taking to promote manufacturing skills.

John Hayes: We are promoting manufacturing skills with success. Provisional figures show substantial growth, with 47,020 apprenticeship programme starts in engineering and manufacturing technologies in 2010 alone. That is an increase of 20%. The development of advanced and higher level apprenticeships and the roll-out of the “see inside manufacturing” initiative will build on that success.

Stuart Andrew: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increase in the number of apprenticeships that was announced today, which demonstrates a real commitment on the part of the Government and employers to training the next generation. Companies such as ATB Morley, in my constituency, and Airedale International are crying out for a skilled work force. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on how apprenticeships can help to provide the training skills that such companies need?

John Hayes: Apprenticeships are, of course, jobs. They give people a chance to learn in the workplace. They provide individuals with a chance to gain the skills that they need and that fuel social mobility, they provide companies with a chance to gain the skills that they need in order to prosper, and they provide Britain with a chance to become a more cohesive, successful and prosperous nation.

Jim Sheridan: When the Minister has a moment, will he reflect on early-day motion 2218, which seeks to expose six British construction companies that are threatening to tear up the national pay agreement for skilled electricians and thus trying to de-skill the construction industry? Perhaps in the fullness of time he will give us a written response expressing his view of those actions.

John Hayes: I should be happy to do that. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point, and I will certainly consider doing what he suggests. Moreover, I should be happy to meet him and anyone he wants to bring to my Department, with my officials, so that we can take the matter further.

BAE Systems

Andrew Stephenson: What steps his Department is taking in response to recent job losses announced by BAE Systems.

Mark Prisk: The Government’s first priority is to support the individuals whose jobs may be at risk. To that end, the Jobcentre Plus rapid response service is providing support, training and careers advice. The Government are also working with the Lancashire and the Humber local enterprise partnerships on two potential new enterprise zones to support local economies.

Andrew Stephenson: What role does my hon. Friend think that group training associations can play in redeploying and supporting those who have lost their jobs? In Lancashire we have Training 2000, the biggest GTA in the country, which is already working closely with Rolls-Royce and other businesses that are currently recruiting.

Mark Prisk: The Government greatly value the role of group training associations. They are crucial, which is why we are supporting them through the growth innovation fund. However, I note the individual case that my hon. Friend has raised.

Graham Jones: What is the reason for the reversal of the decision on the Lancashire enterprise zones in September? In August a bid had been turned down, and job losses had been agreed by the Ministry of Defence in July. That sequence of events suggests that the MOD was not talking to BIS, and that BIS made a reckless decision in August which was overturned by the Treasury. Can the Minister explain?

Mark Prisk: There was a real problem for the workers in that area, and we responded positively by providing the additional two enterprise zones. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Construction Industry

John Cryer: What steps his Department is taking to support the construction industry.

Mark Prisk: The Government are acting positively to strengthen the industry by reform the planning system, modernising public sector procurement, and producing the first national infrastructure plan, which will unlock up to £200 billion of both public and private investment.

John Cryer: Can we return to planet Earth? Since the election 65,000 jobs have gone in construction, no one is training apprentices, and public sector contracts have dried up. Do we not need a bit more action?

Mark Prisk: It is nice to have the hon. Gentleman back on planet Earth. It appears that he has been away from it for a long time. We have heard about the work that the Government are doing on apprenticeships, we have seen the investment in infrastructure, and there is a positive story to tell. Why cannot the Labour party understand that?

Simon Hughes: Very much on planet Earth, there are many sites that are not being developed but could be. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury to ensure that financial incentives are offered to the owners of sterile land so that it can return to use and be developed, thus providing jobs in the construction industry?

Mark Prisk: My right hon. Friend has made an eminently sensible suggestion. This is why we are adopting a positive approach, and trying to ensure that when Departments have redundant land, we can return it to use.

Toby Perkins: Britain’s construction industry needs a lion at the wheel, but instead we have a tortoise that is sitting still while building sites and people in our construction industry are made redundant. However, there is an alternative. The shadow Chancellor’s five-point plan will produce projects that will enable us to get the industry moving. For instance, a VAT cut to 5% on home improvements and repairs and maintenance is a targeted approach that is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses. Will the Government take serious action to get the construction industry moving?

Mark Prisk: As I recall, the tortoise beat the hare.

Stem Cell Research

Graham Stringer: What steps he plans to take to protect stem cell research in the UK following the decision of the European Court of Justice to prohibit the patenting of inventions based on human stem cells; and if he will make a statement.

David Willetts: We are—[Interruption.] We are carefully considering the impact of the ruling—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have had enough references to animals. Let us now experience the product of one of the brains of the Minister.

David Willetts: I will do my best, Mr Speaker.
	As I was saying, we are carefully considering the impact of the ruling on current UK patent practice. The Technology Strategy Board currently funds 15 studies involving human stem cells, two of which use human embryonic stem cells. The TSB and the research councils will continue to support and fund research on stem cells from all sources, including embryonic.

Graham Stringer: That was an interesting reply, because leading scientists in the field have called the decision everything from “devastating” to “appalling”. They believe this work will move to South Korea and Canada, and that potential cures for people suffering from
	degenerative diseases will be developed later, if they are developed at all. I simply do not understand the Minister’s answer, and I would like more details on how he is going to stop this work going abroad.

David Willetts: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this research is very important in tackling fundamental human illnesses such as Parkinson’s, and that is why we will continue to support it. We are assessing the implications of the ECJ ruling. It is important that stem cells can be derived in a variety of ways, and embryonic stem cells are only one source of stem cells. That is why we need more time to assess the implications of this judgment.

George Freeman: I am sure the Minister agrees that stem cell science is one of Britain’s great strengths. The feeling within the industry is that this Government are putting their money where their mouth is. In contrast to the accusations and nonsense coming from Opposition Members that we are not investing in science, the recent £195 million investment in graphene and supercomputing and the protection of the science budget amounts to a real growth strategy.

David Willetts: We are totally committed to investing in life sciences in Britain, and let me give a practical example of how we can cut the burden of regulation to bring this industry forward: we have committed to reducing the time it takes to start a clinical trial from over 600 days—the period we inherited from the previous Government—to 70 days in future under us.

Anne Begg: My understanding is that the Court’s judgment does not stop research into embryonic stem cells, but that it does mean that scientists will not be able to patent anything worth while, and that therefore the intellectual property is likely to go abroad, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said. What are the Government going to do to stop that happening, because this research is vital for people with degenerative diseases?

David Willetts: The hon. Lady is right: this is vital research. The crucial points, however, are that the research is taking place using stem cells from a range of sources, not just embryonic stem cells, and we are continuing to assess how much of the research and development that currently takes place in Britain would be affected by this judgment.

Entrepreneurship

Stephen Lloyd: What steps he is taking to encourage entrepreneurship.

Mark Prisk: The Government are committed to making the United Kingdom the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. Steps being taken include boosting tax relief, getting the banks to increase lending to small firms and scrapping regulations from this Department alone that would have cost small and medium-sized enterprises more than £315 million every year.

Stephen Lloyd: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is clear that the Government are taking an active lead on growing and supporting our entrepreneurs. Will he therefore join me in supporting the Federation of Small Businesses in its fantastic real-life entrepreneur campaign, as that support will demonstrate yet again just how committed the coalition Government are to the entrepreneurial spirit in UK plc?

Mark Prisk: Absolutely. That is an excellent campaign by the FSB, and it shows why we are focused on matters that concern those real-life entrepreneurs: cutting their costs; tackling red tape; and of course improving access to finance. There is a lot more to do, but they know that we are on their side.

Bill Esterson: Another excellent campaign from the FSB and also the Federation of Master Builders is the “Cut the VAT” campaign, which supports a cut in VAT on home improvements to 5%. Such a move would also be good for entrepreneurs. Will the Minister support that campaign?

Mark Prisk: We are doing a lot of things to help small businesses. I notice that, although the Labour party is now saying that such things should be done, in 13 years in government it did not do it. Why not?

Simon Kirby: I congratulate the Minister on all the help he is giving entrepreneurs. Could he find time in his busy schedule to visit the many entrepreneurs in Brighton and Hove?

Mark Prisk: I will be delighted—my diary secretary may not be—to respond positively to my hon. Friend’s request.

Seaside Towns

Adrian Sanders: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on support for seaside town economies.

Greg Clark: My two Departments, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government, have regular discussions with the Treasury about support for economies. My hon. Friend will know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has announced the coastal communities fund, which will be available from April.

Adrian Sanders: Two Select Committee reports have identified that one of the main problems facing coastal communities is poor transport links. May I invite the Minister to visit the warm and welcoming English riviera to see the challenges and opportunities there, which could be fully addressed by better transport links?

Greg Clark: A visit to the English riviera is an enticing invitation, and I will be delighted to go there. My hon. Friend is right to say that connectivity is a concern for all coastal communities, and I know that he is waiting
	for a decision on the south Devon link road. I cannot pre-empt that, but I think I will go by train this time to avoid any delays.

Alison Seabeck: Will the right hon. Gentleman place in the Library a copy of the advice he received from BIS officials—not DCLG officials—on the historical disadvantages that seaside towns and cities face, particularly those relating to access and business failures? Clearly the advice was not forceful enough, because neither Torbay nor Plymouth was successful in this round of bids for local enterprise zones, as he well knows.

Greg Clark: As the hon. Lady knows, we have had discussions about Plymouth. I very much hope that all the representatives of Plymouth will join in putting together an area to attract business that is very much in keeping with the enterprise zone proposal. Of course I will put together a package of the research and make it available to her.

Scientific Research

Jane Ellison: How much capital expenditure for scientific research his Department has allocated in 2011-12 to date.

David Willetts: I have recently announced that the Department will be investing an additional £145 million in high-performance computing. That brings the Department’s total capital spend in science and research to £793 million for 2011-12.

Jane Ellison: I thank the Minister for that reply. Britain has always been great at discovering and inventing things, but we need to address how to commercialise some of that cutting-edge research. Will he therefore comment on what the Government are doing to ensure that we bring that research, and those discoveries and inventions, to market in the future?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we are setting up the network of six technology and innovation centres. It is why we are particularly backing the campuses in Norwich, Babraham, Harwell and Daresbury, which bring together scientific research and business applications. It was also the reason for the investment of £50 million in the application of graphene to business purposes, which was announced only a few weeks ago.

Paul Blomfield: Does the Minister recognise the deep concern in our universities at the cutting back of their capital programme, in contrast with what is happening in other countries, which will put us at a significant competitive disadvantage?

David Willetts: The figure that I just gave the House for capital spending on science and research is comparable with the figures for capital spending under the ring-fenced science budget under the previous Government. So, even in tough times, we are absolutely maintaining our commitment to investing in science.

MPharm Qualification

Charlie Elphicke: If he will consider changing the MPharm qualification from level 6 to level 7.

David Willetts: The Government do not determine the academic levels of higher education qualifications. The Higher Education Funding Council funds the MPharm as an undergraduate master's degree, to the benefit of 10,000 students a year who are entitled to teaching grants and student support.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Minister for that answer. My constituent Louis Leir has done an undergraduate degree and wants to do a MPharm, but unfortunately it is classified as an undergraduate-level degree. He is therefore caught by the equivalent or lower qualifications —ELQ—policy and is unable to get help with tuition fees. Will Ministers give further considerations to the issues relating to master's level qualifications? The MPharm truly is one of those, as most of the House probably recognises.

David Willetts: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in pursuing that constituency case, about which we have corresponded. Just as he was with the Pfizer case at Sandwich, he is a persistent hon. Member and I congratulate him on that. However, we believe that if we were to take the ingenious approach he proposes, it might mean that the 10,000 undergraduates currently benefiting from financial support lose it.

Apprentices

Graham Stuart: What assessment he has made of the difficulties faced by apprentices aged 19 and over in obtaining adequate funding for level 3 qualifications.

John Hayes: The Government are investing significantly in adult apprenticeships, with earmarked investment of £679 million in 2011-12. We rely on employers coming forward to make places available and many more are doing so every day, week and month. There were 114,900 starts in 2010-11—nearly twice as many as in the previous year—for those aged over 19.

Graham Stuart: The Minister not only champions apprenticeships but facilitates their delivery and I congratulate him on that. May I ask him to consider introducing a flexible three-year contract for young apprenticeships, with a break clause after year 2, so that there is an equalisation of funding for young apprenticeships on courses both before and after their 19th birthdays?

John Hayes: Knowing my hon. Friend’s expertise and commitment to this subject, when I saw his question I spoke to my officials and got an interesting response from them. I think that if we better estimate at the outset people’s prospects of progression, we may well be able to take account of what my hon. Friend says. I invite him, as I did earlier, to come to the Department
	to talk that through and to see what changes we can make to remove any disincentives of the kind to which he refers.

Russell Brown: The construction industry, the manufacturing sector and apprenticeships all go hand in hand. Will the Minister confirm that the vast majority of the increase in apprenticeships in the past year has been in the over-25s category? Frankly, that is not doing enough to assist with the serious problem of youth unemployment.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a growth in over-25s apprenticeships and he will know that the previous Government commissioned the Leitch report, which said that that was exactly what we needed—to upskill and reskill the work force. Notwithstanding that, however, he will also know that there has been remarkable, unprecedented growth in 16 to 18 apprenticeships and in 19 to 24 apprenticeships over two years. Contrary to the complaints of the carpers and the cringers, the whiners and the whingers, the biggest proportion of growth has been at level 3—that is A-level equivalent.

Mr Speaker: We always enjoy the lyricism of the Minister.

Sajid Javid: Having recently served a one-year apprenticeship by the side of the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, I am not surprised by the excellent numbers that were released today on apprenticeships, as his dedication is second to none. May I ask him to say a word on the increase in level 3 apprenticeships, which are equivalent in qualification to A-levels?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend has gone on to other, I am tempted to say greater, things since he served that apprenticeship, and he is right to draw attention once again to the increase at level 3, because there were those, largely drawn from the bourgeois left, who looked down their noses at practical learning and who thought that the most growth would be at level 2, but actually we have facilitated very substantial growth—over 60%—at level 3 as my hon. Friend says. It is a rosy day for the Government and, much more importantly, a rosy day for Britain.

Small Businesses

Robert Halfon: What steps he plans to take to reduce costs for small businesses.

Mark Prisk: In these rosy days, in addition to extending small business rate relief and reversing Labour’s planned rise in payroll taxes, we also intend to reduce the burden of financial accounting rules. That will save businesses up to £600 million, a third of which will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises.

Robert Halfon: At a time when many small businesses are struggling to thrive in the economic climate, will my hon. Friend join the campaign of Harlow chamber of
	commerce and the Essex Federation of Small Businesses strongly to oppose the proposals of the Health and Safety Executive to charge £750-plus to inspect small businesses?

Mark Prisk: I am very much aware of the consultation that the agency is undertaking on fees and other proposals, and I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend voices. Any fees, any proposals, need to be proportionate and reasonable.

Gordon Banks: Many small businesses in the construction sector would benefit from a cut in VAT to 5%, as has been raised. We heard the Minister’s response; he thinks we are wrong in calling for that. If he thinks we are wrong, does he think the Federation of Master Builders, the Builders Merchants Federation, British Precast and the Modern Masonry Alliance are wrong as well?

Mark Prisk: The Labour party thought those organisations were wrong when it was in office. The party needs to realise that it cannot do one thing in government and say another in opposition. [Interruption.] That is its record.

Topical Questions

Jake Berry: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Vincent Cable: My Department has a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy and business to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.

Jake Berry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I congratulate Ministers on the fantastic apprenticeship numbers that were announced today. With that and the rebalancing of our economy in mind, and given that in Rossendale and Darwen we have a manufacturing economy, can the Secretary of State tell the House how we are going to make it easier for employers in my constituency to take on new apprentices?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge the big increase in apprenticeships, and it is not simply quantity; it is also about quality. Some of the rapid growth that is taking place is in advanced apprenticeships, including in manufacturing, and we welcome that, but we do not accept that the status quo is adequate. We want to strip away some of the bureaucratic barriers that hinder companies, particularly small companies, and my colleagues are working on that.

Chuka Umunna: A few years ago, the Business Secretary was described by the Deputy Prime Minister as an “economic prophet”. So in January, when the Secretary of State told the House that
	“…economic growth is now strong. It will become stronger as a result of the work that the Government are doing in stabilising finances”—[Official Report, 13 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 429.]
	we listened with interest. Given the performance of the economy since January, does the Business Secretary believe he has lived up to his billing?

Vincent Cable: May I first warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his rapid and considerable promotion? I will not tempt fate by hoping that he makes a success of it, but I none the less wish him well. Of course, one advantage that he has in coming into Parliament only very recently is that he is not personally responsible for some of the disasters that occurred under his predecessors. One of our problems is sorting out some of those disasters, not least of which are the massive deficit that we inherited, a broken banking system, large amounts of personal debt and a flat housing market. All those factors explain why it is now very difficult to launch into rapid growth, but we are putting in place the rebalancing of the economy and the financial discipline to make that feasible.

Chuka Umunna: I thank the Business Secretary for his kind words, but I wonder when he will take responsibility. In his first speech as Business Secretary, he described his Department as the “Department for economic growth”. The truth is that, under his leadership, it has been the Department for no growth. The economy has stagnated, unemployment has soared and confidence has nose-dived—and that is all before the effects of the eurozone crisis have been felt. Things would be very different if he changed his policy and adopted a proper plan for growth to get demand back again. In January, he thought his policies were working and it turns out he was wrong. He has described himself as a Keynesian, but Keynes famously said:
	“When the facts change, I change my mind.”
	Why will the Business Secretary not do the same?

Vincent Cable: Well, Keynes famously wrote in his well-publicised note to Franklin Roosevelt that probably the most useful thing that the Government could do in a depression was keep down long-term interest rates, and that is what this Government have done as a result of their fiscal prudence.
	The hon. Gentleman says that we do not have the policies in place; we have two things in place. We have policies for financial stability, which we did not have when we inherited the economy; and on the other hand we have policies in place to rebalance the economy, to reinvent manufacturing, which was allowed to decline catastrophically under the previous Government, and to promote exports and business investment—things that were shamefully neglected when his colleagues were in government.

Jane Ellison: The Mayor of London has had great success in growing the number of apprenticeships from the low base inherited from his Labour predecessor by requiring apprentices to be taken on as a condition of bids for public projects. Will the Minister look at whether that success could be built on and extended to national Government?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the remarkable figures in London. Of all the regions, London has seen the biggest proportionate growth in the number of apprenticeships, and I recently had a meeting in the Mayor’s office to discuss the subject. She is also right that there are things
	the Government can do to help, so we will look again at what can be done, based on the experience in London, to promote apprenticeships in the way she describes.

Nicholas Dakin: In June, the Office of Fair Trading upheld the Which? super-complaint about card surcharges, agreeing that they pose significant detriment to consumers. When will the Government act to stop people being exploited in this way?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are looking at the OFT’s powerful report and consulting colleagues in the Treasury, and we will come back to the House in due course.

Michael Fallon: In formulating his response to the Beecroft review, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the interests of hundreds of thousands of people who are currently locked out of the labour market, particularly youngsters who might well be prepared to waive some of the more generous job protection provisions in return for that vital first start?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor has announced that we will move the period of unfair dismissal from one year to two years—I know that my hon. Friend welcomes that—which will deal with exactly the point he has made. He will also know that we have an employment law review and a red tape challenge to ensure that we have employment laws in this country that will make our labour market fair and efficient.

Stella Creasy: What message do the Government think they are sending to the thousands of families in this country who are now struggling in debt as a result of payday loans, by allowing the legal loan sharks not only to advise them on employment law, but to swell their party coffers?

Edward Davey: I was expecting the hon. Lady to thank the Government for putting forward an idea that she and other Members have been pressing on the Government: namely, to launch research on the impact of a cap on the total cost of credit. I am really rather disappointed in her.

Margot James: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Wilson review on the collaboration between industry and universities. I am currently working on a project in the west midlands with local business leaders and universities. Will he meet industrialists and me when the report is competed next year?

David Willetts: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, because she is absolutely right that one of our priorities is to ensure that the strength of our research base is fed through into stronger support for business and greater business investment, and we look forward to Sir Tim Wilson’s report.

Mark Hendrick: The Secretary of State will be aware that Remploy businesses were set up across this country after the second world war to give work to disabled people returning from the war. Those businesses have gone on for decades and given great work to disabled people. Why are the Government going to axe the programme?

Vincent Cable: Certainly we should be doing all we can to support disabled workers. My understanding is that those decisions lie with the Department for Work and Pensions, but I would be happy to engage or help if there is a problem.

Nadhim Zahawi: UK Trade & Investment has just completed a trade mission to Iraq for the Erbil international trade fair, of which I was privileged to be a part. We had 86 businesses, companies and educationalists at the British pavilion at the trade fair, whereas three years ago we had only one. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the UKTI team and our consul-general on their great work during the mission?

Vincent Cable: Yes. UKTI does an excellent job. Like all other parts of the Government, it is having to do more with less, but it does so through refocusing and strategy. I have not yet been to that country, but I look forward to doing so.

Diana Johnson: Does the Minister of State really think that sending a letter to Members whose constituents are affected by the potential redundancies at BAE Systems stating that those people could move to other parts of the country to get jobs shows any understanding of the regional economy and the need for skilled manufacturing jobs, particularly in the Humber area?

Mark Prisk: The letter sets out, first, help for those individuals on the ground at those sites. Secondly, it refers to making sure that by having the new talent retention service we do not lose those skills; and, thirdly, it refers to making sure that we put enterprise zones in place. I have to say that the response I have had from local people has been far more positive, sadly, than that of Labour Members.

Andrew George: Many of those who strongly support the Government’s policy to establish a grocery adjudicator to curb the bully-boy tactics of supermarkets will be concerned to ensure that it has the teeth to do the job. Will my hon. Friend the Minister take this opportunity to reassure those supporters of the Government’s policy that a supplier will not be required to take the risk of making a complaint in order to prompt an inquiry by the adjudicator?

Edward Davey: I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because he has been a stalwart campaigner for that change. I am delighted that we were able to publish the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill on 24 May, and that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s report on it has welcomed our proposals. He will know that the proposal is unique, because it allows anonymous
	claims to be made to the adjudicator and for reports, of which the adjudicator will be able to take note, to be put into the public domain.

William Bain: The Bank of England’s own data released last week indicate that lending by banks to small businesses fell by £2.5 billion in the three months to August. Was not the Secretary of State right to admit at last that the economy is in a far weaker state under this Government than it ever was in the last year under Labour?

Vincent Cable: That certainly is not the case, but the hon. Gentleman has a perfectly valid point in relation to bank lending. That is absolutely the case, and, as a result of the agreement that we have reached with the banks, they have—certainly in the first two quarters—achieved the gross lending objectives that we set them, but there is a lot more to do. Surveys show that a shortage of credit is a serious problem, and we have to continue to work with the banks and, where necessary, to require them to make credit available to the economy.

Greg Mulholland: Since December 2008, 3,218 tied pubs have closed and 425 free houses have opened, yet the British Beer and Pub Association, which speaks for pub companies, continues to mislead Ministers and MPs by stating that the opposite is actually the case. Do Ministers agree that this discredits the BBPA and also shows that the Government must stick to their commitment to act on the issue?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner on the subject, and he will know that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has just undertaken a report on all those issues. The Government are therefore considering it and will respond to it shortly. If I were tempted into replying to the details of his question, I would prejudice that response.

Valerie Vaz: Having withdrawn funding from the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, will the Secretary of State tell us which women’s organisations he has contacted to encourage women back into those under-represented areas?

David Willetts: It is important that women are properly represented in engineering and science, and I discuss that issue with a range of groups, so I hope the hon. Lady will be encouraged by the fact that we have 26,000 STEMNET ambassadors. Already, we have 40% who are female, but obviously we need to be better.

Duncan Hames: Next month should at last see meaningfully democratic elections in Egypt, but a new democratic Egypt faces a future hamstrung by debts from the Mubarak era. Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials to conduct an audit of the £100 million owed by Egypt to the Export Credits Guarantee Department?

Vincent Cable: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a mechanism for dealing with official debt, through the Paris Club, but I will certainly undertake to speak to my colleague, the Secretary of State for International Development, to ask what concessional assistance we
	are giving to Egypt. The matter does not directly bear on my Department, but I accept that there is a link with the promotion of trade.

Grahame Morris: Does the Business Secretary believe that tax evasion and tax avoidance is having a negative impact on economic growth?

Vincent Cable: Absolutely. I am resolute, and I hope that my colleagues on the Opposition Benches will work with me in combating both.

Julian Huppert: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is considering the creation of a public data corporation. Does the Minister accept that making public data openly available can facilitate innovation in more ways than can be easily anticipated, benefiting the economy and the country? Will he meet me and other campaigners to discuss the details of that further?

Edward Davey: I am certainly very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. He is right to bring attention to this very important innovation by the Government to create something called a public data corporation, bringing together a number of key Government assets to ensure that they are managed efficiently and to put a greater amount of data into the public domain.

Chris Bryant: One of the Labour Government’s great successes was the introduction of
	the artist’s resale right. Since then, the art market has quadrupled, and hard-pressed artists have received £13 million. The derogation in awarding the artist’s resale right to the estate of dead artists lapses at the end of the year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that from January next year it will apply to the estate of deceased artists?

Vincent Cable: No, I cannot confirm that, but I will speak to my colleague at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the impact on the art market, and how we propose to proceed with that in the European Union.

Marcus Jones: The success of apprenticeships is undoubtedly vital to future prosperity in areas such as the west midlands. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the apprenticeship programme in the west midlands region?

John Hayes: I described this as a rosy day for Britain, and it is a rosy day for the west midlands too. The number of apprenticeship starts in the west midlands is up by more than a half on 2009-10, which is due in part to the advocacy of excellent Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. We must press on because we have a hectic schedule today.

Eurozone Crisis

George Osborne: I wanted to update the House as early as possible on developments in the eurozone overnight, and in the absence of the Prime Minister as he travels to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, to report on the good progress made at yesterday’s European Council.
	The crisis in the eurozone has caused instability in financial markets, has greatly undermined confidence around the world, and is having a chilling effect on economic growth in many countries, including our own. It is in our overwhelming national interest that a coherent, comprehensive and lasting solution to the eurozone’s problems is found, because the decisive resolution of this crisis would provide the single biggest boost to the British economy this autumn, and the break-up of the euro would be the single greatest threat to our prosperity.
	Our view about how to solve the eurozone’s immediate problems has been clear, consistent and forcibly expressed. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have set it out to the House on a number of occasions: reinforcement, recapitalisation and resolution. First, eurozone member states need to reinforce their bail-out fund to create a firewall; secondly, weak European banks need to be recapitalised; and thirdly, the unsustainable position of Greece’s debts needs to be resolved. But if the solution is to last, as I said many months ago, members of the eurozone also need to address the logic of monetary union by pursuing greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, while at the same time we protect Britain’s interests.
	We have to improve competitiveness: competitiveness in the peripheral economies of the eurozone as measured against the core economies like Germany, and competitiveness across the whole European continent versus the rest of the world. This is the solution of the crisis that we have been advocating for months, and the solution again advocated by the Prime Minister at yesterday’s European Council.
	Our view is that last night very good progress was made towards solving the immediate crisis—very good progress on all fronts. The deal put together is much better than was expected yesterday afternoon. But much detail remains unresolved, and having put pressure on the eurozone to get this far, we have to keep up the pressure to get the details completed. It has started down the right road; now it must finish the job.
	Let me take each element of last night’s deal in turn and say how it affects Britain. First, on recapitalising banks, we are pleased that the European Council agreed to the proposal hammered out by myself and other Finance Ministers at the weekend ECOFIN. All major European banks will be required to hold at least a 9% core tier 1 capital ratio by the end of June next year, including marking to market all their exposure to sovereign debt. The European Banking Authority, based here in London, assessed that achieving this target means that banks will require an extra €106 billion of capital, and the Council yesterday confirmed that if this cannot be raised privately, Governments will have to step up to the plate.
	I can confirm to the House today that in the assessment of the European Banking Authority and our own tripartite authorities, no British bank requires additional capital. This is an important expression of confidence in this country’s banking system at a time of global financial stress. EU member states also agreed to co-ordinate guarantees of term funding, should they be required, and we have ensured that state aid rules will be applied properly, and European banks will be restructured if necessary, just as the European Commission demanded of the last British Government two years ago.
	While some would have wanted an even tougher banking agreement, and even more capital going into Europe’s weak banks, we should welcome what has been achieved with this agreement. We now have—unlike the totally inadequate stress tests of last year—a commitment to significant extra resources for the European banking system. However, the UK and others insisted that that commitment from the whole of the European Union on banking be conditional on the two other key components of the solution to the crisis that I set out: a reinforced firewall and a resolution of Greek debt. These are both properly matters for the Eurozone, not the UK—and they are both matters on which progress was also made last night.
	On Greece, a headline agreement was reached to reduce the Greek debt-to-GDP ratio to 120% by 2020. The eurozone will contribute an additional €30 billion. Because the British Government have made sure that we are not part of the Greek bailout, none of that extra €30 billion will come from our taxpayers, while private holders of Greek sovereign debt will be asked to accept a nominal write-down of 50%. A lot more work is needed to put all this into practice, including detailed negotiations with the private sector—but we said that Greece’s debts were unsustainable, and we are pleased to see a resolution in sight.
	On reinforcing the size of the firewall, the eurozone has set out two options that could operate in tandem. One is to provide, from the bail-out fund, insurance on new debt issued by Eurozone countries; the second is to create special purpose vehicles that can attract resources from private and public investors. In its statement, the eurozone said that
	“the leverage effect of both options will vary”
	but that they could be
	“expected to yield around 1 trillion euro”.
	We have always believed that the role of the European Central Bank is critical, and I welcome the positive statement made by Mario Draghi, the incoming ECB president.
	Talk of special purpose vehicles has given rise to questions about the involvement of the International Monetary Fund and major shareholders like the UK. As I have said to the House on many occasions, Britain has always been one of the IMF’s largest shareholders and biggest supporters: we helped to create the institution 60 years ago; the last Government agreed to increase its resources two years ago; and this Government not only ratified that agreement but helped to make the IMF more representative of the new world economy by brokering a deal last year that gave countries like China and Brazil a greater say, while securing Britain’s seat on the board. The IMF has been an active participant in the packages put together to support Ireland, Portugal
	and Greece. It has also been active in extending flexible credit lines to Poland and Mexico—neither of which are in the eurozone, of course—as well as supporting other countries in central and eastern Europe such as Hungary, Romania and Latvia. Indeed, it currently has 53 lending programmes around the world, of which only three are in the eurozone.
	Supporting countries that cannot support themselves is what the IMF exists to do, and there may well be a case for further increasing the resources of the IMF to keep pace with the size of the global economy. Britain, as a founding and permanent member of its governing board, stands ready to consider the case for further resources and contribute, with other countries, if necessary. Let us remember that support for the IMF does not add to our debt or deficit, and that no-one who has ever provided money to the IMF has ever lost that money. But let me be very clear: we are prepared to see an increase only in the resources that the IMF makes available to all the countries of the world. We would not be prepared to see IMF resources reserved for use only by the eurozone. By all means the IMF can use its expertise and advice to help the eurozone to create the special purpose vehicle that it is considering. By all means let countries with large foreign currency reserves like China consider putting their own money into the eurozone’s special purpose vehicle—that must be their decision—but the IMF cannot put its own resources in; it can lend only to countries with a programme for adjustment.
	I confirm today that Britain will not put its resources in either. We do not have a surplus; we have a large deficit. We have had to use our resources to recapitalise our banks and to stand behind our currency. An active member of the IMF? Yes. Helping the IMF with advice and technical support? Yes. But the IMF contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. And Britain contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. That is Britain’s clear position.
	We expect eurozone members to use the next few days—the next few weeks, at the most—to provide much more detail about their plans to increase their firewalls and sort out Greek debt. We have made it clear that the sooner that happens, the better it will be for the world economy. We must maintain the momentum.
	This package will not on its own resolve the longer-term issues of how to make the euro work more effectively. Those longer-term issues were addressed yesterday, and there were proposals for greater fiscal integration and mutual control over the budget policies of eurozone Governments. I have argued that we need to follow the remorseless logic of monetary union, and that involves a loss of national sovereignty for countries in the eurozone.
	It is in Britain’s interest that the euro operates more effectively, provided that the interests of all 27 member states are properly protected in key areas of European policy, such as the single market, competition and financial services. We are insistent that our voice will continue to be heard and our national interests protected. We have found allies among the other 10 members of the EU that are not in the euro. An important marker was put down in Sunday’s European Council conclusions.
	No one pretends that sorting out this situation in a satisfactory way will be easy, but it is a necessity. That is the context in which we should approach potential treaty changes. The coalition Government have already
	proved that they can protect Britain’s interests by getting us out of the previous Government’s involvement in the eurozone bail-outs, holding down the European Union budget increases, and putting into law the guarantee that no further powers or competencies can be transferred to Brussels without the consent of the British people in a referendum. The Government will again protect Britain’s interests as the discussions on a possible limited treaty change begin. We will seek to rebalance the responsibilities between the EU and its member states, which in our view have become unbalanced.
	Finally, the euro will not find lasting stability until its peripheral members become more competitive. That means credible plans to reduce budget deficits. That commitment was made in the very first section of yesterday’s agreement. However, that involves difficult decisions on pension ages, business tax rates, welfare reform and educational standards. Britain, thankfully, is not in the euro, but we are taking those difficult decisions at home, because the ultimate lesson of this crisis is that unless a country can pay its way in the world and compete around the globe, it will be next in the firing line. I am determined that our country will never be in the firing line.

Rachel Reeves: I thank the Chancellor for coming to the House to make that statement. With the shadow Chancellor in New York, I am responding on behalf of the Opposition, and I have a number of detailed questions. It is good that some agreement has been reached, but with so little detail, many unanswered questions remain. I hope that the Chancellor can help the House today, because whatever happens in the eurozone will have huge ramifications for British families and businesses.
	First, on the recapitalisation of the banks, is the Chancellor confident that the deal announced is sufficient and that UK banks do not need further recapitalisation? Will he keep that under review? What estimates has he made of the exposure of UK banks to Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish sovereign debt? Will he confirm that the House of Commons estimates of $3 billion for Greece and $17 billion for Italy reflect the current position for UK banks? Although the agreement states that banks and other creditors are invited to accept a 50% loss on Greek sovereign debt, is the Chancellor confident that the vast majority will agree—and if so, by when?
	On the expansion of the European financial stability facility, does the Chancellor believe that the €1 trillion package is sufficient? Does it amount to the “big bazooka” that the Prime Minister talked about earlier this month? Alternatively, will we be back here in a few months’ time, which would mean further uncertainty, undermining confidence, undermining investment and undermining growth? That is the last thing that Britain, or Europe, needs.
	Can the Chancellor explain how the leveraging of the EFSF will work, and when he believes the detail of credit enhancement and special purpose vehicles will be finalised? If the EFSF must also fund bank recapitalisation, will it be sufficient to give the markets confidence, and will there be funds remaining to underpin any sovereign debt crisis and prevent further contagion?
	Although we have a clear economic interest in the eurozone sorting out its problems, the interests of British taxpayers must be safeguarded. It would have been
	wrong for Britain to pay twice, both through ongoing temporary EU bail-out funds and through the IMF. If this package is indeed the final and permanent bail-out fund, any British role should be through the IMF alone.
	I heard the Chancellor’s question and answer session with himself on the IMF, but will he clarify what he said on the radio this morning? He said that the IMF was not
	“going to put additional resources directly into the eurozone, hypothecated for the eurozone.”
	Does he believe, though, that there will need to be a further increase in UK contributions to the IMF? Whether he succeeds in persuading it to describe that as anything other than a hypothecated fund is irrelevant.
	On the arrangements for future decision making, the agreement states:
	“The President of the Euro Summit will keep non euro-area member states closely informed of preparations and outcomes of summits.”
	“Closely informed”? Has Britain now been reduced to simply receiving a postcard from Brussels? How will the Chancellor ensure that Britain’s voice, and our vital national interest, is heard loud and clear in future negotiations?
	On the forthcoming treaty changes, will the Chancellor admit what the Prime Minister was unable to admit yesterday? Is it now the Government’s policy to seek to repatriate powers as part of those treaty changes? Which ones, and on what timetable?
	Finally, is not the missing piece in the agreement the lack of any plan for jobs and growth, which were not mentioned at all in the Chancellor’s statement? Is it not the case that without growth we cannot solve the debt crisis, we cannot solve the banking crisis, and we cannot solve the jobs crisis? At this time, Britain should be leading the charge and pushing for a proper plan for jobs and growth across Europe. But is not the truth that this Chancellor cannot do that? With unemployment at a 17-year high here in Britain, with no growth since last autumn, and with borrowing therefore now set to be £46 billion higher than he planned, he is clinging to an austerity plan that is failing here in Britain.
	With the UK economy flatlining since this time last year—before the eurozone crisis of recent months—and with only Greece and Portugal growing more slowly than Britain, is it not time that we had a plan for jobs and growth—across Europe, yes, but here in Britain too?

George Osborne: I thank the hon. Lady for some of her questions. Of course, we miss the constructive and consensual approach of the shadow Chancellor. We are talking about the Bretton Woods institutions, and it turns out that he is at a place called Buttonwood, which adds to the pantomime feel of Labour’s economic policy.
	Let me deal directly with the hon. Lady’s questions. First, of course we keep the capital and liquidity positions of the British banks under constant review. We would do that in the absence of any European agreement, but of course we have also participated in the recent work by the European Banking Authority. We thought it was important that that was done at EU level rather than eurozone level. I repeat what I said in my statement: the
	EBA and our own authorities confirm that no British bank requires additional capital, which of course is very good news for us all.
	On the hon. Lady’s question about getting private sector involvement in the write-down of Greek debt, that is of course one of the key unresolved issues from last night. We now need to see whether the headline agreement reached on behalf of the private sector can be implemented in practice. I am confident that it can, but that is one of the crucial next steps that need to be got on with.
	The hon. Lady asked about the exposure of the UK banking system and the UK economy to various peripheral economies of Europe. Those figures are published regularly by the Bank of England. I do not propose to repeat them today, but they are available for everyone to see.
	On the question that the hon. Lady asked about the overall fund, €1 trillion is the number that the eurozone has put on its firewall. Of course, some said it should be larger, but it is very significantly larger than what we had yesterday, which we should welcome. As with private sector involvement in the Greek deal, we now need to see the details of how the eurozone will create that leverage. It has set out two options that can work side by side. One is a kind of first loss insurance on newly issued debt, and the second is the special purpose vehicle, by which it hopes to get external private sector investment. Of course, it is openly speculating about getting Chinese money into that.
	The IMF can only lend directly to countries, and countries with programmes or agreed and negotiated flexible credit lines, which will remain the case. It cannot lend into that special purpose vehicle. That is also the UK position. We do not think that Britain, with its deficit, can contribute to the special purpose vehicle. If we were to do so, we would add to our debt, and we do not think that that is appropriate. We have had to use our own resources to deal with our own problems in this country.
	It is of course crucial that the IMF remains a central economic institution in dealing with the world’s problems, and I urge the hon. Lady, newly appointed as shadow Chief Secretary, to reconsider Labour’s position—[ Interruption. ] I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) led the Labour party in Committee to vote against the increase in IMF resources, which the last Labour Prime Minister negotiated at the London 2009 summit. Whatever I have said about him—and I have said quite a few things—I do not think that anyone would doubt that the highlight of his premiership was the negotiation of the London 2009 G20 deal. It is completely astonishing that the Labour party voted against that agreement.
	As we discuss over the next few months increasing the IMF’s resources to deal with all the countries of the world, I urge Labour Members to reconsider their position on that, and also their rather odd position on the euro. They seem to be holding out membership of the euro—[Hon. Members: “No!”] Well, that is certainly what the Labour leader was doing at the weekend. To be in the euro but out of the IMF strikes me as a rather bizarre economic policy at the moment.
	That brings me to my final point. Britain has been arguing consistently for months that a solution to this crisis requires recapitalising the banks, reinforcing the
	firewall and resolving the Greek crisis. We have insisted that the appropriate issues are discussed at the level of 27, which is why there have been two European Councils this week, and an ECOFIN. We will continue to argue for Britain’s national interest as we enter the difficult discussions ahead on the potential treaty change, on making the euro work, and above all on getting the growth and jobs that the hon. Lady talks about across Europe and in this country, by making this continent far more competitive and stopping Britain and Europe from pricing themselves out of the world economy.

Andrew Tyrie: Following on from the Chancellor’s final remarks, I am sure he would agree that without a restoration of growth in the eurozone, the debt crisis simply cannot be resolved. He has been with his counterparts quite a lot in the past few days. What evidence has he seen in discussions with them that the EU has the will to implement the necessary reforms on the supply side of the economy to restore Europe’s global competitiveness?

George Osborne: There is increasing evidence that people are focused on the structural issues facing the European economy. Indeed, when my hon. Friend looks at the agreement issued by the eurozone last night, he will see that when it refers to Spain and Italy, it stresses the importance not just of getting their budget deficits down, but of plans to increase the pension age and make labour legislation more flexible and competitive—all the sorts of things that this Government are pursuing here in Britain, although every one of those measures has been opposed by the Labour party.

Alistair Darling: Does the Chancellor agree that one reason why the bank recapitalisation worked three years ago was that we were able to provide precisely the sort of detail required to reassure markets that we were taking the necessary action? When can we expect to hear, for example, exactly how much Greek debt is to be written down, and which banks in continental Europe will require additional funds from Governments or other sources? When can we expect to hear more detail about the rescue fund? In relation to that, can he let us know whether there is a commitment on the part of the eurozone to provide real cash—or are we looking at a sophisticated financial instrument of the sort that might have contributed to the problems in the first place?

George Osborne: I fear that we are looking at a sophisticated financial instrument here. However, it is clear that Germany and the Bundestag were not prepared to provide further resources. The European Central Bank was not prepared to provide those resources either, for all sorts of reasons to do with its history and those of other central banks in Europe. They have therefore turned to those options to try to leverage up the money they have already committed. That is the sensible choice for them, given those other constraints. They are trying to get other private investors from around the world, potentially including the involvement of sovereign wealth funds, to leverage up the fund.
	Of course, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner we get the agreement in detail, the better. That applies equally to what he said about private sector involvement in the Greek write-down.
	A mistake made earlier this year, on 21 July, was that eurozone members put together a deal and then took months to implement it and get the detail. He is completely right to say that yes, we made some good progress overnight, but the job is not finished yet. The eurozone now has to get the detail and reassure the markets that it has got a grip of the situation. That is where we will continue to exert British pressure.

William Cash: In what respects does the Chancellor believe, and can he demonstrate, that the proposals for a two-tier Europe and a fiscal union do not represent a constitutional, economic and political fundamental change in the relationship between the EU and ourselves?

George Osborne: If my hon. Friend is referring, as I suspect he is, to the European Union Act 2011, there are clear procedures in place for establishing whether powers or competencies are being transferred from the UK and this Parliament to Brussels. Those procedures are clearly set out, but I would say that it is in our interests that the euro works. That requires greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, which works to the benefit of Britain, provided that—this is an important proviso—we can continue to ensure that our voice is heard on issues that are for the 27 members, such as the single market, competition policy and financial services. That is what we will be fighting hard for in the coming months.

Kelvin Hopkins: I remain wholly unconvinced that the euro can survive in its current form, unless the weaker countries are permitted to recreate their own currencies and devalue. They currently face permanent deflation and permanent handouts from Germany. That is no future for them, and no future for Europe.

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman has consistently made that argument for at least as long as I have been a Member of the House of Commons, and longer still. He probably takes some comfort in the fact that events over the past decade have tended to reinforce the views that he has expressed, but I would say this: it is in Britain’s interest that we make the euro work. The disorderly break-up of the euro, or any break-up of the euro, would be an enormous economic blow for this country. Forty per cent. of our trade is with the eurozone.
	If we set aside the arguments that we will have this autumn and next year about the domestic effects of the Government’s policies—the Government will argue that they promote growth, and the Opposition will argue that they undermine it—everyone in the House would accept that instability in the eurozone has had a chilling effect on the British economy and other economies. If that is what a bit of instability and market volatility can create, let us just imagine what the break-up of the eurozone will do to this economy.

Michael Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what the consequences would have been for our membership of the IMF if those who had voted against the increase in our subscription had prevailed?

George Osborne: That would have been catastrophic. We would have been the only IMF shareholder not to have ratified the deal initiated at the London G20 summit, which would have completely isolated Britain. We might
	have had to leave the IMF, and we would certainly have lost our permanent seat on the board. We heard all the talk from the shadow Chief Secretary about ensuring that Britain is at the table—but she wants us to get up and leave the IMF table.

Gisela Stuart: In his statement, the Chancellor said, quite rightly, that the euro would not work unless the periphery countries regained their competitiveness. How is that possible if those countries do not have the full IMF package, including currency devaluation? In that context, does he think that the IMF will get its money back?

George Osborne: It is perfectly possible for areas within a monetary union to increase their competitiveness relative to other areas in the union—parts of the United Kingdom and the United States have done so in the past 20 or 30 years. It is possible, but it is very hard work—I agree with the sentiment that the hon. Lady is expressing—and requires people to tackle tough issues, such as labour market reform, pension ages, tax rates and so on, which, of course, are controversial. However, people in countries such as Italy, Spain and Greece have been confronted with the reality of the need to make change—although we will see whether they do indeed undertake that change. The IMF is the guardian of its own programmes and makes constant assessments of its programmes in Ireland, Greece and Portugal. I do not want to be premature, but I think that we are seeing substantial improvement in the Irish economic performance after the difficult decisions that they have taken in that country.

Douglas Carswell: The Foreign Secretary once described the euro as a “burning building”. Might it not be an idea for us to help our neighbours get out of the building? We know that there is always an exit from monetary union, so why not help our friends to get out? Keeping them in at any price is in neither their interests nor ours.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter before, and we disagree. What the Foreign Secretary said at the time—I remember because I was his speechwriter—[Interruption.] And there were some very good speeches at the time.

Chris Bryant: Didn’t he write any of his own speeches?

George Osborne: They were all written by him.
	The Foreign Secretary described the euro as a
	“burning building with no exits”.
	That was his point. As I said, the break-up of the euro, disorderly or otherwise, this autumn or in the foreseeable future, would cause enormous instability to the entire global economy and do enormous damage to the British economy.

Natascha Engel: Will the Chancellor provide some clarification? He said that no UK funding would go to the euro bail-out. When he talked about supporting the IMF, therefore, did he mean with advice and suggestions only or is he using
	UK taxpayers’ money to support it? If the latter, how will he force the IMF to ring-fence the money so that it does not pay for a euro bail-out?

George Osborne: Let me be clear to the hon. Lady. The IMF potentially has a role—but that is yet to be decided—in helping the eurozone to organise its special purpose vehicle, provide technical support and do all the things that it is very good at doing, which is stepping in and providing expertise. That is a perfectly legitimate role for the IMF. It has done it in other situations where trust funds and the like have been created around the world. However, we are saying that there should not be IMF resources going into this special purpose vehicle in terms of a lending programme. The IMF lends money to countries with conditions attached, and that is what it should do in the future. It is what its articles require it to do. We do not support, and I do not think that the IMF does either, changing those articles and allowing the IMF to lend money to the special purpose vehicle. We are against that and against Britain contributing to the special purpose vehicle, even if countries such as China or Chinese sovereign wealth funds docontribute.

Stephen Williams: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement that resolving the immediate crisis in the eurozone and securing the long-term future of the euro currency are in Britain’s national interest. However, would he agree that it is also in Britain’s national interest to maintain full, positive and active engagement within the EU 27 member states in order to deepen the single market and increase intra-EU trade, which will benefit all member states?

George Osborne: I absolutely agree that there is a very important role for the EU27 to strengthen and deepen the single market and to promote free trade—the EU has just concluded a free trade agreement with South Korea that benefits the British economy directly. Also, the EU will have an important role in things such as financial services regulation, and it is important that that is discussed at the level of the 27, because we are such an important player in the financial services industry worldwide. So I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Britain has been absolutely clear in recent months that issues affecting the 27 should be discussed by the 27, not at the level of the 17 euro members. It has been partly through our insistence, with others, that there have been two European Councils and an ECOFIN this week to ensure that proper procedures are followed.

Mike Gapes: The Chancellor said that British interests should be properly protected when the eurozone countries move towards giving up national sovereignty and towards greater fiscal integration. Will he clarify how that will happen?

George Osborne: This is the argument that we have to make over the coming months and as the discussions start on whether there is going to be a future treaty change—although what is being talked about is a treaty change of a limited nature. We have to look for ways of securing Britain’s influence and voice, and the influence and voice of the other nine EU member states that are not in the eurozone. That is absolutely top of our negotiating agenda. However, we also want to secure a rebalancing of the responsibilities between the EU and its member states, which will be another important part of the argument that we make.

David Nuttall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the 17 eurozone countries have established the precedent of holding their own euro summit and have created yet another president, the president of the euro group, there is a real danger that they will start to agree policies to suit themselves and then impose them on the other 10 EU countries that, thankfully, like the UK, have not adopted the euro?

George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be alert to the danger of the 17 eurozone members, which will have a qualified majority voting majority, caucusing on areas that are legitimately the preserve of the 27 member states. When this country, under the previous Government, allowed the Eurogroup of Finance Ministers to be established and accepted that Britain would not be at that Eurogroup, there was the fear that the Eurogroup would caucus. That was one of the concerns of the then Government and Opposition. That actually has not happened. If anything, they have not co-ordinated and worked together closely enough over the past decade or so. However, he is absolutely right that we need to ensure that they do not caucus in the future in a way that undermines our voice and influence or that bounces all 27 member states. All member states not in the euro are alert to this challenge. Indeed, last night the Prime Minister had dinner with the Polish and Swedish Prime Ministers to discuss precisely that issue.

Dave Watts: Will the Chancellor be crystal clear? Is he guaranteeing that no British money will be used for this bail-out directly, through the IMF or through any other vehicle?

George Osborne: I can guarantee that British money is not going into the special purpose vehicle.

Peter Bone: The Chancellor is absolutely right to say that a disorderly break-up of the euro would be a disaster, but given that the euro is going to break up, should we not take the advice of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and organise an orderly break up of the euro?

Chris Bryant: That was not my advice.

George Osborne: I do not think that the orderly break-up of the euro, even if it were desirable, which I am not saying it would be, could be done in a way that would not lead to a pretty disorderly impact on financial markets and the British economy.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is a very naughty boy and I shall see him afterwards.
	Basically, Greece lied about its finances and Italy is probably still lying about its finances. It would have helped enormously had there been independent proper auditing of those countries’ finances. Many people opposed that when it was proposed, but surely we should be advocating it now. The danger for the Government is that it might apply to all 27 countries, not just the 17 eurozone members.

George Osborne: Indeed. The statement talked about independent auditing of finance and independent growth figures on which to base fiscal projections, which is precisely what we have introduced in this country through the creation of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
	That will ensure that we do not get political pressure to alter the growth forecast of the type that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), detailed in his recent autobiography.

Robert Walter: The 50% haircut has been described as a charge on the banks, but Greek sovereign debt is actually held by insurance companies, pension funds and hundreds of thousands of individual savers. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is in the package—or what measures he thinks need to be taken—to restore confidence in the existing sovereign debt of the peripheral eurozone countries?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend’s first point is a good one. The write-down of Greek debt ultimately has an impact on people who invest in Greek debt, either directly or—as is more likely for the general population of this country—through their pension funds and the like. Thankfully, British institutions were not that heavily exposed to the Greek banking system and economy, compared with other European countries such as France and Germany, but he is right that people will have taken losses. In Britain, the institutions that he mentioned all provisioned for Greek loss many months ago, so it will come as no shock to them. More broadly, he asked about confidence in the stock of debt, which is of course one of the challenges. The first loss guarantee that the agreement talks about is only for newly issued debt. We will have to see how the special purpose vehicle works as well, but in general, if there is confidence that there is a sufficient set of mechanisms in place to stand behind the euro and countries that are in trouble, that will also increase confidence in the stock of debt.

Tony Lloyd: The Chancellor might be surprised to know that if limited treaty changes are necessary to set up the inner 17, there would be support from the Opposition Benches for the limited changes needed to protect Britain’s interests and for the capacity to build a coalition among the 10 non-eurozone members. However, a very real political question is whether the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will be able to withstand the pressure from their Back Benches for much more fundamental reform of the treaty.

George Osborne: I would hope that we would persuade all parties in this House. There is certainly strong agreement on the Conservative Benches that we want to rebalance the responsibilities and repatriate some powers. The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Democrat leader have talked about rebalancing responsibilities—he did so earlier this week. [ Interruption. ] The shadow Treasury Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), seems to forget the position set out by his party leader this weekend. When he was asked whether he thought that Brussels had too much power, he said no. That is the official position of the Labour party going into these negotiations. I know that Opposition Members look pretty glum about it, but that is what the leader they chose—or rather, they did not choose—has done for them.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Chancellor explain to the House how it has come about that although the United Kingdom’s deficit this year is larger than Greece’s, our interest rates are similar to those in Germany?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good observation. Because of the credible fiscal plans that we have set out, we have secured confidence in Britain’s ability to pay its way in the world, taken our credit rating off negative watch, which is where it was at the time of the general election, and secured for our country record low interest rates. Those interest rates would be at risk if we pursued the policies advocated by the Opposition, which would also be a rather bizarre position to take into the European Council discussions, when right at the top of the agreement signed yesterday is the statement that countries need to pursue policies of
	“fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.”
	The Opposition have voted against every policy of fiscal consolidation and every policy of structural reform.

Jonathan Edwards: Does the Chancellor think that the 50% haircut of Greek sovereign debt will be sufficient and does he expect that holders of Italian debt will also need a trip to the barber’s?

George Osborne: We think 50% is a very good number. We had in mind somewhere around 50%, and we wondered whether that would be achievable. One of the pleasant surprises of last night was that it was achieved. It is only a headline agreement, and as the former Chancellor said earlier, it absolutely needs to be put into practice now if this deal is to mean anything. I think it is best for me to stick to talking just about Greece.

Jo Johnson: RBS shares have jumped 7% this morning in response to the eurozone statement. Does the Chancellor share the markets’ view that British banks are sufficiently capitalised to withstand not just the haircut to Greek debt, but any other eventualities that might arise in the eurozone over the next few months?

George Osborne: Yes, I am confident about that, which is also something that the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority monitor carefully. The important thing about the test that the European Banking Authority applied was that it not only required banks to hold 9% core tier 1, but marked to market their sovereign debt exposures, which is something that the eurozone resisted for the last year and a half. Of course, the market has priced in some haircuts—to continue the barbershop analogy—of other sovereign debts. That does not mean that I think they will happen; they are what the market thinks will happen. The fact that we have now tested our banks against those marked to market on sovereign debt gives us confidence that the banking system in Britain can withstand whatever is thrown its way in the next couple of months.

Barry Sheerman: Something that I do not often discuss with people in the House is the fact that for some years the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, his Chancellor and I chaired the committee on preparations for the euro, on which the present Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills served, so I have some experience in this area. The Governor of the Bank of England said that we were in the middle of the worst crisis in the history of the international economy, but when I listened to today’s
	statement, the Chancellor seemed to come across as extremely timid about this country’s role in meeting that challenge.

George Osborne: I will have to thumb through the index of Peter Oborne’s book, “Guilty Men”, to see whether there is a reference to the hon. Gentleman. I will concede that there are a few references to some of my colleagues in that book, but I have a good alibi, which is that I was writing speeches for the Foreign Secretary at the time, making it clear what some of the problems were with the euro, and some of those problems have come to pass.

Chris Bryant: Who wrote the speeches?

George Osborne: As the Foreign Secretary used to say at the time, he wrote his own speeches, and I write my speeches today—and those who have written my speeches before me have got themselves into the House of Commons, which is a good thing.
	The serious point that I would make to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is this. I completely reject his idea that Britain has been marginalised. We have actually insisted that such matters be discussed at the European Council and ECOFIN. A key component of today’s agreement is the banking package, which is the area where there is most detail. There was a 10-hour negotiation to achieve the banking package last Saturday which Britain was right at the heart of, so we are at the centre of things. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that his party’s Front-Bench policy to marginalise us from the IMF would also see us leaving that key negotiating table.

Christopher Chope: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals for a financial transaction tax are now dead in the water?

George Osborne: I cannot confirm that they are dead in the water, because the eurozone is determined to pursue a financial transaction tax and talks about that in its statement. However, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that Britain will not accept a financial transaction tax at an EU27 level while other jurisdictions in the world do not impose one. We are not opposed to financial transaction taxes in principle—after all, we have stamp duty on shares in this country—but we will not have a financial transaction tax at a European Union level while countries such as America, China, Singapore and others do not have one. As their having one is a long way off, we will be waiting a long time—perhaps for ever—for a European Union financial transaction tax.

Andrew Love: Over the next few years we are likely to see the emergence of a two-speed Europe, with the Government—or parts of the Government—going in exactly the opposite direction. What can the Chancellor and the Prime Minister do to ensure that we are not locked out of the fundamental decisions that will be made?

George Osborne: I just do not accept the premise behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. The coalition agreement explicitly states:
	“We will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences”.
	The odd one out is the Labour party, which has set itself against taking any power from Brussels back to Britain. That is exactly what the Labour leader said this weekend when asked that question. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman use his lobbying efforts and his questions on his own party leader.

John Baron: I for one do not share the optimism that the latest package of measures will do the job, if only because it does not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is a lack of competitiveness. If there were to be a further downward leg to the crisis, can the Chancellor assure the House and the country that Britain will not be called on in any way to help financially with any further rescue packages, whether through the IMF or not?

George Osborne: As I have said to the House, Britain should not be part of eurozone bail-outs. We got ourselves out of—[ Interruption. ] I am answering the question. On coming to office, on the Sunday after the general election, the Labour Government committed us to being part of an EU bail-out of the eurozone. We have now got ourselves out of that, which is very important. We are also not contributing to the eurozone bail-out of Greece, which has just increased in size; nor are we going to contribute to any special purpose vehicle or fund that might be created. We are absolutely clear about that. When it comes to IMF resources, like every other country in the world that is a member of the IMF, including China, Thailand, Guatemala, the United States of America, Canada and Brazil, we of course contribute to its resources for the 53 programmes that it is currently carrying out across the world, and we will continue to do so. However, we are not prepared to see—and the articles of the IMF do not allow for—money from the IMF being put into a special purpose vehicle. So I think that the position is pretty clear.

Michael Connarty: I would think much more highly of the Chancellor if he would actually admit that one reason that the banking system in the UK is not under threat is because the last Government and the people of this country bailed out the banks.
	The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, as Hansard will show, I asked him last time about the possibility that they would require a £2 trillion fund, which most economists say they will, and that the so-called haircut—more Sweeney Todd than Vidal Sassoon—would be 60%. Surely we must be in the IMF and involved in funding through the IMF; otherwise the big bazooka that the Prime Minister has talked about will say “Made in China”.

George Osborne: I am happy to acknowledge that the previous Government recapitalised the British banks. They were obviously under enormous duress at the time—[ Interruption. ] It is simply not the case, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East has just suggested, that the Conservatives opposed that. We supported it at the time; indeed, we were advocating it in advance of it happening. However, I completely recognise that it was a difficult decision for the previous Government to take.
	On the question of the size of the fund, of course there are those who would like it to be even larger. We should welcome the significant progress that has increased its size severalfold to, potentially, around €1 trillion,
	which is a significant sum. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) also asked an interesting question about what was happening during our time as Members of Parliament to the balance of economic force and power in the world. I suspect that we are going to spend many years talking about that in the period ahead.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen to accommodate the remaining colleagues who are seeking to catch my eye, but I must remind the House that there is a business statement to follow, and a significant debate thereafter. I am therefore looking for brevity.

James Clappison: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s approach, including his recognition that the division of responsibilities between the EU and member states has become unbalanced. Does he agree that the new proposals for fiscal integration and mutual control in the eurozone do nothing to reduce the case for a rebalancing of those responsibilities?

George Osborne: Yes, I think that I can agree with my hon. Friend.

Nick Smith: Can the Chancellor update us on the situation regarding Cypriot banks, with their many customers in the UK and their tie-in to the Greek economy?

George Osborne: We keep under close surveillance not only British banks but the branches of Cypriot banks and the subsidiaries of other banks operating here in the UK. So we are closely monitoring the Cypriot banks, as we do with the other eurozone banks in Britain.

Ian Swales: Has the Chancellor seen any credible figures that show that Greece can solve its long-term deficit and debt problems and still remain in the eurozone?

George Osborne: Yes, I think that there are plenty of things that Greece can do, which the Greek Government have already identified, to make itself much more competitive. It is coming from a long way behind, but it can do quite a lot in regard to its labour market, its pension ages, its tax rates and the like that would make it considerably more competitive than it is today.

Luciana Berger: Can the Chancellor please give us more details of how he intends to represent the UK’s interests, given that the eurozone countries have their own separate president and summits?

George Osborne: Eurozone Finance Ministers’ meetings are already held every month—that was agreed by the previous Government—and there is now an agreement to hold two eurozone Heads of Government summits a year. There have been two this year already, but we should not regard that as a fundamental threat; we have to allow them to get together to better manage their own currency. We are, however, looking at proposals that have been put forward here for those summits to take place after the EU27 leaders gather, rather than before, so that we do not have any caucusing in advance of a meeting of the European Council.

Sarah Wollaston: How confident is my right hon. Friend that countries such as China will want to contribute to the special purpose vehicle, and what will happen if they do not?

George Osborne: The short answer is that we will find out whether China wants to contribute. The President of France is speaking to the President of China today, and he will no doubt give us all an update following that conversation.

Wayne David: Much to the annoyance of some of his Back Benchers, the Chancellor supports greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, but what precisely does he mean by greater fiscal integration?

George Osborne: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to Conservative Back Benchers. Actually, quite a lot of Eurosceptics would argue—as I would, as a Eurosceptic—that we always said that this would happen if we joined the single currency. We always said that it would result in losing national sovereignty, co-ordinating budget policies or giving away powers over budgets. That is one of the reasons that we did not want Britain to join; it is why we stayed out. Given that monetary union logic leads to greater fiscal integration, we should let that happen, because I think that it will make the euro work better. As I have said, however, Britain wants no part of it.

Robert Halfon: Harlow taxpayers will be very relieved that none of their hard-earned money is to be used to prop up failed socialist Governments in Europe. They will also want to be sure, however, that my right hon. Friend will do all that he can to repatriate powers from Europe, unlike Labour Members, who believe that everything in the EU garden is rosy.

George Osborne: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we are going to seek to rebalance those responsibilities. He also draws our attention to the fact that Greece and Spain are run by socialist Governments, but I do not want to intrude on their politics.

John Mann: Having just taken credit for letting Greece off half its debt at the expense of, among others, British pensioners, what provisions would the Chancellor advise British institutions to make in regard to Italian debt?

George Osborne: I am not providing that advice across the Dispatch Box, but the Financial Services Authority, the Bank of England and the Treasury monitor British financial institutions to ensure that they are appropriately prepared for things that might happen. The European Banking Authority test that I have talked about takes into account a mark to market on the sovereign debt exposures of countries such as Italy and Spain.

Rob Wilson: The Opposition have talked a lot about Britain’s marginalisation, so may I say that I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister attended yesterday’s meeting because I know that the Leader of the Opposition would much prefer President Sarkozy to represent this country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that while he is Chancellor he will do everything he can to ensure that a British Prime Minister represents British interests in Europe?

George Osborne: I can just say yes to that.

Jonathan Ashworth: May I just press the Chancellor a little further on the Prime Minister’s desire to repatriate powers over employment and social policy? What discussions has he had so far with eurozone Finance Ministers on these matters and how many of them would he expect to support the Prime Minister’s position?

George Osborne: The discussions on treaty change, which the Council conclusions on the eurozone mention, have only just begun, so I have not had those discussions.

Jason McCartney: Would my right hon. Friend anticipate how his international counterparts would have reacted at recent EU summits if he had argued that, as advocated by Labour Members, the UK should increase its borrowing by the end of this Parliament by up to £87 billion a year?

George Osborne: We would, of course, have been laughed out of the summit. We would not even have been able to sign up to the Council’s conclusions. The Labour party policy has no plan to reduce the deficit—[Interruption.] Well, if there is a plan, let us hear it. Let us hear one example. The Labour party has no plan to reduce our deficit, which is higher than that of almost any of the countries we have talked about. It has a plan basically to pull us out of the International Monetary Fund and a plan to join the euro—such plans would be treated as slightly bizarre at some of these meetings.

Sheila Gilmore: More constituents have contacted me about the financial transaction tax than ever contacted me about Monday’s debate. They will be pleased to have heard the Chancellor say that he supports this in principle. Will he go to the G20 to argue vigorously in favour of this tax?

George Osborne: What I would say about the financial transaction tax—[Interruption.] I am not sure that it is Labour policy. There is a debate about this tax, but attached to it is a serious red herring. People would like a financial transaction tax to be used to pay for the aid commitments into which big western countries entered. That is what all the non-governmental organisations that contacted the hon. Lady and others are arguing for. Britain is meeting its international aid commitments out of its own resources, and we do need a financial transaction tax across Europe for other countries to meet the aid commitments they entered into. When it comes to the principle of the financial transaction tax, one cannot oppose it, as we have a stamp duty on shares, but I would say that if we impose such a tax in Europe, all the business would disappear overnight to Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere. We know that because that is what happened when the United States imposed a form of transaction tax on the euro-dollar market—it moved to London—and when Sweden introduced a financial transaction tax in the early ’90s, its entire business moved to London almost immediately. We have many case-studies. I understand why people are emotive about this issue, but surely the question is, “Are you meeting your aid commitments?”—and this country is. We should all be proud of that.

David Rutley: Following the deal on the eurozone, I understand that Italian media and Italian businesses are calling on Mr Berlusconi to copy this Government’s approach to deficit reduction. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Italy and other eurozone countries would have been far better off if they had followed that course of action long before now?

George Osborne: I think they would have been in a better position if they had got ahead of the pressure from the markets rather than being pursued by them. That is precisely what this Government did in Britain. The markets are, for many people, an abstract idea, but as we have discussed, we are talking ultimately about the decisions of many millions of investors and people with pensions, life insurance policies and the like about where they put their money. If they do not have confidence in a country’s ability to pay its way in the world, that money disappears almost overnight.

Gordon Banks: Has the Chancellor had an opportunity to carry out the work that will determine if, when and by how much last night’s decision will impact on UK growth? If he has not had that opportunity, will he undertake to come back to us so we can have further debate on that very matter?

George Osborne: The honest answer to the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly good question is that, on the morning after the night before, we do not know because important details remain to be resolved. We need to see the detail of how this 50% write-down of Greek debt is going to happen and we need to see how the new firewall will work in practice. We have to see the details: until they are in place, this will remain unresolved and the instability might return. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that when the detail is in place, we should be able to make an assessment of whether it has calmed the markets and improved the UK growth position.

Julian Brazier: While strongly supporting my right hon. Friend’s robust defence of the national interest, may I ask him what the statement means where it says “to provide, from the bail-out fund”, presumably the existing bail-out fund, “insurance on new debt issued by Eurozone countries”, presumably including Italy?

George Osborne: The concept here is that first-loss insurance on newly issued debt from countries such as Italy, as my hon. Friend mentions, would be provided out of the special purpose vehicle. That would obviously make it easier for investors to buy bad debt.

Neil Carmichael: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement that some progress has been made to protect the eurozone. In parallel with repatriating powers, will the British Government make it absolutely certain that the single market becomes a place where competition can thrive and productivity can improve, as it is in our interest as well as that of the whole of Europe to make sure that it works well?

George Osborne: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The European single market has helped the UK economy over the last couple of decades. We want to see it completed further and we want to see the services
	directive properly implemented. Competition has brought great benefits not just to the economy, but to European consumers, including those in this country. To my mind, that is what the European Union exists to do. It should make its contribution to growth across the continent.

Penny Mordaunt: Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that the euro preparations unit has been abolished and that under this Government it will never be re-established?

George Osborne: That is an easy assurance for me to give to my hon. Friend’s constituents. There was a euro preparations unit in the Treasury when I arrived. It was shut down and it will not be reopened.

Henry Smith: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the previous Government signed this country up to the Nice treaty 10 years ago, they also signed away our veto on financial assistance to European nations?

George Osborne: I can confirm that we have lost our veto on financial assistance. That was one of the issues with the so-called EFSM—the European financial stabilisation mechanism—which was the EU27 bail-out fund, which we joined a couple of days before this Government were created. Getting us out of it—[ Interruption.] The former Chancellor’s memoirs are very clear about this.

Christopher Leslie: Who wrote them?

George Osborne: The former Chancellor wrote them! What I would say to my hon. Friend is that we did not have the power to veto disbursements from the EFSM, so we had to negotiate our way out of it. That is precisely what the British Prime Minister has done.

Christopher Pincher: We hear Labour Members suggesting that Britain is somehow isolated from other members at the EU table, but does the Chancellor agree that what they forget is that by refusing to rule out joining the euro and by insisting that more powers be ceded to Brussels, they are isolating themselves from the broad mass of the British people?

George Osborne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable position for the Labour leader to take when he says:
	“I don’t think Brussels has too much power.”
	What sort of negotiation would it be if he were in charge?

Nigel Mills: I, too, welcome the Chancellor’s efforts to protect British taxpayers from further bail-outs. I also welcome his statement that the International Monetary Fund exists to support countries that cannot support themselves, but I reiterate my concern that the IMF does not end up supporting a currency if a country chooses not to take the right action.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend has made a good point. The IMF exists to support countries, and supports 53 at present. It does not exist to support currencies.

Andrew Selous: Can the Chancellor tell us how on earth it can be the case that, although it has a larger deficit than Greece, the United Kingdom enjoys German levels of interest rates?

George Osborne: That is because this Government, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party—which created this mess—have established fiscal credibility, brought our interest rates down, and ensured that while we may talk about the bail-out of some European countries, we are not talking about the bail-out of Britain.

Business of the House

George Young: The business for the week beginning 31 October will be as follows:
	Monday 31 October—Instruction relating to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 1).
	Tuesday 1 November—Continuation of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 2).
	Wednesday 2 November—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 3).
	Thursday 3 November—General debate on the Silk commission.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 7 November will include the following:
	Monday 7 November—Money Resolution relating to the Localism Bill, followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Localism Bill.
	Tuesday 8 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to European budgets, followed by motion to approve a reasoned opinion relating to credit institutions, followed by business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Wednesday 9 November—Opposition day [unallotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 10 November—General debate on armed forces personnel.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 and 10 November 2011 will be as follows:
	Thursday 3 November—Debate on shale gas, followed by debate on electricity market reform.
	Thursday 10 November—Debate on funding of social care.

Angela Eagle: Last Monday was the 50th anniversary of the first session of Prime Minister’s questions. I am surprised that the Leader of the House did not mention that. I know how much you enjoy those occasions, Mr Speaker.
	When I looked it up, I found that the first such occasion featured an old Etonian Tory Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, fielding questions about his negotiations to get us into the “common market.” Fifty years on, the latest Old Etonian Tory Prime Minister spent the day frantically pleading with his own side not to vote for a referendum to get us out of it. Macmillan was famous for his “little local difficulties”. I think that the current Prime Minister now has 81 “little local difficulties” of his own making, and more in the Cabinet. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the PM will follow Supermac’s example, and resort to a “night of the long knives” to deal with them?
	This Government’s flawed choice to cut too far and too fast before the recovery was secure stalled growth in the economy long before the eurozone crisis. Despite
	the most ferocious squeeze in living standards for generations, their only plan is to abolish employment rights for millions of people in the workplace. May we have a debate on this week’s leaked report from millionaire financier Adrian Beecroft, which calls for the scrapping of protections against unfair dismissal, and says that creating that insecurity for millions of people at work is “a price worth paying”? Can the Leader of the House tell us why owning four Aston Martins and making lavish donations to the Tory party qualify Mr Beecroft to have a worthwhile opinion on anything?
	Last week the Leader of the House told us that rushing forward the debate on EU reform from Thursday to Monday would allow the Foreign Secretary to enrich it with his presence. Can he tell the House how large the Tory rebellion would have been if the Foreign Secretary had not enriched the debate with his presence? And, given that this was the biggest rebellion on Europe in any political party since the dawn of time, can he tell us who is taking the blame? Tory blogger Tim Montgomerie blamed the Prime Minister, accusing him of having a work ethic which is the “opposite of Margaret Thatcher’s”. Apparently our Prime Minister is more interested in the latest box sets than in his red boxes. This week he has obviously been watching too much of “The Sopranos” and not enough “Friends”. [ Laughter.]

Gavin Barwell: Ah! It was a joke!

Angela Eagle: Shall I say it again, then?

David Heath: It is a repeat.

Angela Eagle: Indeed. Perhaps I should repeat it.
	Is it not clear that the Prime Minister’s plans backfired spectacularly, with half his own Back Benchers defying him? Today we learnt that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has threatened to leave the Cabinet if he is ever forced to vote against his Eurosceptic instincts again, and now we learn that the Justice Secretary has been suddenly pulled out of today’s debate on the Council of Europe, just in case he says something nice about the EU and further alienates the Tory rebels. What has it come to in today’s Tory party when Eurosceptics are bullied and pro-Europeans are gagged?
	Given that last night’s welcome agreement in Brussels brings the prospect of a treaty change much closer, can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government’s policy on Europe is now, and may we have a debate about it? While he was getting the Whips to bully them, the Prime Minister was trying to appease his mutinous Back Benchers by promising them reform tomorrow. The next day, his deputy vetoed it. The Prime Minister wants to repatriate powers, whereas the Deputy Prime Minister says that that “won’t work” and is “condemned to failure”. Which is it?
	Speaking of the Deputy Prime Minister, his reward for rubbing salt in Eurosceptic wounds this week is being allowed to blow an extra half a million pounds a year on seven new Liberal Democrat special advisers. That is apparently intended to “bolster” Liberal Democrat influence in Whitehall. Perhaps, in the light of all this confusion and contradiction between the Prime Minister and his deputy, we should have a debate about what
	plans the Government have to repatriate powers from the Liberal Democrats. Is it not the case that the past few days have exposed a weak Prime Minister leading a divided Government, too busy fighting internal battles to fight for Britain’s interests?

George Young: The hon. Lady is right: this is the 50th anniversary of the first session of Prime Minister’s questions. I think that the Prime Minister enjoys the event more than the Leader of the Opposition.
	I remind the hon. Lady that Supermac never lost an election. As for rebellions, she seems to think that they have only happened under the coalition Government, but the last Government endured much bigger rebellions. In March 2007 94 Labour MPs voted to delay Trident, and even the hon. Lady has a history of dabbling in rebellions on issues such as foundation trusts.
	Let me deal briefly with some of the other issues that the hon. Lady raised. We are committed to reforming employment law, supporting business and encouraging growth, while—crucially—ensuring that we do not weaken the employment rights of workers up and down the country; and we do not comment on leaked reports such as the one to which the hon. Lady referred.
	We have just heard a statement on Europe, in which the Chancellor addressed the issue of treaty change. My party is united behind the Prime Minister’s vision for reform in the European Union, and indeed that is an aspiration shared by many across the continent. I agree with Lord Ashdown, who said in an interview yesterday:
	“I don’t think Europe needs to be as intrusive as it is and so does Nick Clegg.”
	As for the treaty, the hon. Lady will know what the coalition agreement says:
	“We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences”.
	That remains the position. The coalition parties are in total harmony on the issue.

Greg Knight: May we have a debate on happiness? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Is the Leader of the House aware that from this weekend onwards, for several months, many millions of people will be less happy than they could be as Britain is plunged into darkness by early afternoon after we have put our clocks back? If we cannot have a debate, may we have action in future to end this unnecessary and depressing ritual?

George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this important issue. He will know that a private Member’s Bill has been tabled on the specific subject that he has raised. It has received a Second Reading, and the Government are considering their position and consulting the devolved Assemblies which have an interest in the issue. We want to reach a consensus and make progress.

Jim Sheridan: May we have an informed debate about the right of public service workers to be appropriately represented at their workplace? Unfortunately, the sponsor of last night’s Adjournment debate was ill-informed and perpetuated the myth that trade unions are “the enemy within.” He represents the same party that heaps praise
	on our emergency service workers, but seeks to deny them proper representation at their workplace, which is utter hypocrisy.

George Young: As the hon. Gentleman said, we had an Adjournment debate on this subject last night. I am sure that the Minister replying to that debate made an informed contribution and dealt seriously with the issues raised. I cannot promise another such debate in Government time in the near future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that Members who have not been present from the start should not expect to be called?

Stewart Jackson: May we have a debate on freedom of speech? Mr Peter Tatchell—a gentleman for whom I have some admiration—has today attacked the Trafford Housing Trust for its despicable decision to downgrade the position and cut the salary of Mr Adrian Smith, a Christian, for posting private comments on his own private Facebook account on the subject of gay marriage. Should we be putting public money into an organisation that is, effectively, propagating state-sponsored intolerance?

George Young: I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and freedom of worship. Of course people should obey the law of the country. I will draw this incident to the attention of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, to see whether there is any action to be taken either by him or the Housing Corporation.

Natascha Engel: The Backbench Business Committee has experienced a large increase in demand for debate time as a direct result of the introduction of e-petitions. As it is in the Leader of the House’s gift to give debate time to the Backbench Business Committee, will he recognise that his introduction of e-petitions and assigning the Backbench Business Committee to deal with them has led to this enormous increase in demand on time, and therefore allocate extra time, ring-fenced specifically for e-petitions?

George Young: May I begin by commending the work of the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Lady in chairing it? Three petitions have passed the threshold. Her Committee has found time for one in Westminster Hall and one in the Chamber, and the third is before her at the moment. I commend the way in which the Committee has handled those petitions. There will be an opportunity to review both the e-petition regime and the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and the Procedure Committee will conduct a broader review of the calendar, which is the context in which we should address the hon. Lady’s concern about how we might find more headroom for the Committee to respond to the many demands on its time.

Bob Russell: On the question of happiness, the Leader of the House may be interested to know that 50 years ago this very week Helen Shapiro was top of the hit parade with “Walking Back to Happiness”.
	I welcome the upcoming armed forces debate, but will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers are well-briefed on the future of the Ministry of Defence police and on housing for the families of military personnel?

George Young: I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend is happy, as he usually intervenes on matters relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, when he is far from happy. I thank him for his welcome for the armed forces debate. As he knows, there used to be regular armed forces debates in Government time, but responsibility for finding time then passed to the Backbench Business Committee. It has not so far been able to find time for such a debate—we understand why as we have just heard from the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about the time pressures facing the Committee—so the Government have provided a debate in the run-up to Armistice day. We think that that is an appropriate time for the House to remember those who serve in the armed forces, especially as it will now also be held against the backdrop of the ending of action in Libya. We think it is appropriate that the House should have a debate on this subject, which it has not discussed for a year.

Mike Gapes: I understand that the Secretary of State for Health is due to make a statement of some kind at 1 o’clock today on the Government’s response to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel findings on the future of health services in north-east London, including King George hospital in my constituency. This morning, the Care Quality Commission published a damning report on the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, criticising poor management and some poor staff attitudes, and saying that the attempt to cut the deficit had led to reductions in the quality of care and that the transfer of services from King George hospital to the Queen’s hospital had not led to efficiency savings. May we have an early debate on these matters? I understand from the Secretary of State’s private office that he is due to make a statement in six minutes’ time, but neither I nor any of the other eight MPs representing the area—all of whom have been campaigning hard to save services at the hospital—have yet been informed of what is in that statement.

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about health service provision in his constituency. My understanding is that the Secretary of State for Health will shortly make a decision on this issue, which arises from the work of the panel on reconfiguration of services. When the Secretary of State has made his decisions, the Members concerned will be informed in the usual way, and I am sure he will take into account all relevant information, including any from the CQC.

Martin Vickers: When I served as a church warden, I was advised that it was an offence to prevent any worshippers from attending divine service, and that as a church warden I had the power of arrest within the churchyard. I never had to test that, but given the confusion at St Paul’s cathedral, may we have a statement on the legal position?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend on his work as a church warden for the Church of England. As I understand it, there has been a resignation at
	St Paul’s. So far as I know, the protestors have not closed a bank or caused a single banker to resign, but they have closed St Paul’s and caused the resignation of a cleric who was committed to their cause. The legal situation is complex, as there is a variety of land ownership surrounding St Paul’s. My understanding is that the City of London Corporation is in touch with the Church authorities to see if they can reach agreement on the way forward. In the meantime, I hope that the protestors will heed the advice from a number of sources, not least the Bishop of London, that they should stop their protest and allow free access to St Paul’s.

Fiona Mactaggart: Domestic violence costs the economy more than £6 billion, and research shows that it is three times more likely to occur when couples are under financial strain. On Monday, the Prime Minister was unable to tell me three ways in which his Government have helped women’s contribution to the economy. In view of that and the fact that the Bill we will start discussing next Monday will reduce access to legal aid for women victims of domestic violence, may we have a statement from the Government on what they have done to protect women from domestic violence?

George Young: Only a few days ago, we had a debate in which we assisted women by changing the pension age arrangements, and there will be opportunities to discuss domestic violence in the three days next week that we debate the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The hon. Lady will also know that on Tuesday of this week the Home Secretary started a consultation on Clare’s law, which will bring real help to those suffering from domestic violence by giving people the right to know, or a right to ask, whether they are with a partner who has a history of violence. We have, therefore, taken a number of steps to protect women liable to domestic violence, and next week there will be an opportunity to pursue the agenda further.

Kwasi Kwarteng: My constituency of Spelthorne in Middlesex is driven by small business. May we have a debate on tax and tax reforms, and their effect on small business?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right that small and medium-sized enterprises are the drivers of economic growth, and he may have an opportunity to raise the topic when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes his autumn statement in November. In the meantime, my hon. Friend will know that we have extended the small business rate relief holiday for a year, we are working to abolish 43 tax reliefs in the system to come up with a better regime, and we are cutting corporation tax to the lowest rate in the G7. I hope that will help small businesses in Spelthorne.

Pete Wishart: Does the Leader of the House think it is ever right or appropriate for a Chair of a Select Committee to threaten a female member of that Committee with getting “a doing”?

George Young: My understanding is that, whatever happened in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Chairman has apologised and I think that is the right action for him to take.

Angie Bray: Ealing recently held its first public scrutiny meeting on the aftermath of the riots. One of the main concerns was the slowness with which insurance companies have been responding to claims from riot victims. If that is the case, it is totally unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend raise the matter with the Business Secretary and perhaps ask for a statement to be made to the House?

George Young: It would be quite wrong of insurance companies to penalise the victims of the riots by withholding the compensation to which they are entitled. I say in passing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has extended the period during which businesses can claim for compensation. I will certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who may want to raise it with the Association of British Insurers. I am sure that individual Members of Parliament will take up any case where an injustice has been done to their constituents, and pursue it directly and vigorously with the insurance company concerned.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Recently, a female constituent of mine came to a surgery very concerned that she could not get access to a life-saving cancer drug, Femara. This is not to do with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, as the drug is available and regularly prescribed. What she could not do is access it in her chemist, and this is now happening throughout the United Kingdom. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on access to prescribed drugs and on the merits or otherwise of a public service obligation, as every other European country has, to make sure that not only do wholesalers provide these vital life-saving drugs and they are distributed, but every chemist holds stocks of them?

George Young: I understand the force of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. We debated health provision yesterday, although I am not sure whether he had the opportunity to raise the matter then. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman, reacting to the strong case that he has just made.

Richard Fuller: May we have a debate on Government transparency? Hard-working taxpayers are learning today that the previous Government spent hundreds of pounds in an Australian casino. We do not know whether they put all the money on red, we do not know whether they blew it all and we do not know what they did with any winnings, but that is just one example of the misuse of Government procurement cards. Can the Leader of the House also tell us what the Government are doing to crack down on such excesses?

George Young: The Government strongly believe in transparency. My hon. Friend will know that our right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is today publishing details of all credit card expenditure of more than £500 made in recent months. We have borne down on the use of credit cards within the public sector, but we believe that transparency has a key role to play. I commend my right
	hon. Friend for publishing details of spending on Whitehall procurement cards which, as my hon. Friend indicated, has a number of interesting avenues that I am sure the media will want to explore.

Nicholas Dakin: This has been a good week for the Backbench Business Committee. A few months ago, we had a debate in this Chamber about the use of wild animals in circuses, in which the view of the House was very clear. May we have a statement to the House on the progress the Government are making in addressing what they perceive are the legal obstacles to carrying out the will of the House in that respect?

George Young: The Backbench Business Committee exists because the coalition Government set it up; the previous Administration failed to do that. I will certainly make inquiries about any legal obstacles that impede the will of the House, as expressed in that debate, being carried forward, and I will ask the Minister concerned to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Guto Bebb: I welcome the announcement of the decision to hold a debate on the Silk commission in Government time, and I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate that important issue of highlighting the fiscal responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. What assurances can the Leader of the House give me regarding the time that will be allocated for that debate, to ensure that the subject is fully discussed in this House?

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that traditionally there has been a St David’s day debate on Welsh affairs and that in this Parliament we have not had a debate on Wales. Given the pressure on the Backbench Business Committee, we felt that it was right to debate the Silk commission, which addresses issues of the governance of Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales and, indeed, the commission will want to know the views of the House, and we have provisionally allocated a whole day’s debate for that important matter.

Graham Jones: Hundreds of my recently unemployed constituents have heard about job vacancies in the Palace. These are jobs working with charities, offering first-class travel and 40 lavish overseas trips. If the job application forms were made available in Accrington jobcentre, I am sure that we would get a high calibre of applicant. May we have a statement on why those job application details are not available in Hyndburn and Haslingden?

George Young: I am not sure that I have correctly understood the hon. Gentleman’s question. Is he referring to job vacancies in the Palace of Westminster? Is that the thrust of his question?

Graham Jones: Within the Palace.

George Young: Jobs within the Palace come from a variety of sources: some are from individual Members and some are from the House of Commons Commission. The House of Commons Commission, as an equal opportunities employer, advertises jobs in the normal way, and I am sure that we would welcome applications from the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

Robert Halfon: May we have an urgent debate about the incompetence and inefficiencies of the Child Support Agency? Three constituents of mine, David Kidd, Rodney Zuna and Mark Lavery, have been very poorly treated by that organisation. In the case of Mr David Kidd, the CSA is refusing to pay money that is rightfully owed to him after he was found not to be the father of a child, and the situation is causing him immense hardship. Will the Leader of the House raise this issue with Ministers?

George Young: I will certainly contact Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to pursue the individual case raised by my hon. Friend. We all know from our own casework that the CSA generates a fantastic amount of work. The Government are in the process of reforming the child maintenance system by putting the child first, encouraging parents to come to an agreement about financial support and then providing statutory back-up where that is impossible. We believe that that will be a better system than the one we have at the moment.

Diana Johnson: In the light of this week’s comments by Jamie Oliver about school food, may we please have a debate about school dinners and whether the Government have any commitment to them at all?

George Young: The Government are committed to the provision of free school meals with appropriate nutritional content. I would personally welcome such a debate. I cannot provide Government time for one but I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee or you, Mr Speaker, might respond to an application for a debate on the Adjournment.

Gavin Barwell: At the Quest academy in my constituency 41% of pupils got five good GCSEs, including English and maths, this year. That was an increase from the 23% figure that the previous school, Selsdon high, got just a year ago, making the Quest academy one of the most improved schools in the country. Other neighbouring schools—Edenham high school, Shirley high school and the Oasis academy—also saw big improvements. May we have a debate on how the Government’s education reforms are transforming the life chances of deprived children in my constituency?

George Young: We would welcome such a debate, and I hope that the Opposition, who have an Opposition day or two in the weeks ahead, might choose education as a subject for debate. We heard yesterday their somewhat confused position whereby they are in favour of free schools individually, but oppose the policy that generates them.

Dave Watts: Given the fact that the Prime Minister on three separate occasions refused to list the powers that he wants to bring back from Brussels, may we have an urgent statement on the matter so that he can spell out clearly to the British people which powers he wants to bring back from Brussels? Is he afraid to do so?

George Young: The Prime Minister answered questions on this matter for an hour on Monday and he answered questions yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman
	looks at the coalition agreement, he will find a specific example of where we want to get powers back—it concerns the working time directive.

Tobias Ellwood: When I was born, the global population was 3 billion. It is about to breach 7 billion, and although I can say that I have modestly added to that, it is not all my fault. Such increase is unsustainable, as it will put undue pressures on water, food and even jobs. May I invite the Leader of the House enable us to debate that very difficult subject, which we need to embrace in the future?

George Young: We are all in this together. The figures that I saw, which I believe were published yesterday, showed that two thirds of the increase in the UK’s population was due to immigration, with the rest being due to increased longevity. On immigration, my hon. Friend will know the steps being taken by the Home Secretary to reduce net migration down to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. The steps we have taken regarding students, spouses and workers will all have a downward impact on the future UK population, which I hope he will welcome.

Michael Connarty: I wonder if the Leader of the House will encourage the Government to have an investigation and make a statement or create a debate on the operation of the 2002 commercial debts Act? I have found, through the wonderful scheme of being a business buddy for the federation of private business, that small businesses find that many bigger companies still write into their contracts a 90-day payment period, even though the Act states 30 days, and even SELECT, the electrical engineering group, says the same. The big businesses are bullying small businesses out of their rights under the Act, and I want to know what the Government are going to do to enforce that Act.

George Young: We have just had Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise this issue then. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Business Secretary to see whether there is abuse of that piece of legislation and, if so, what action we can take to stop it.

Peter Bone: Monday’s historic debate was a great success for Parliament. The mother of Parliaments was watched by our nation and we had 90-odd Members participating in the debate. They spoke from their hearts and when the Division came Members from all three major parties voted differently. One point that has not been established, though, is that that debate could not have taken place had the Leader of the House not personally driven through the e-petitions process, and I do not think the Prime Minister has given him the credit for Monday’s debate that he deserves. Could we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on ensuring that we have more such debates?

George Young: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his first-class winding-up speech to that debate, which I am sure had an important impact on the subsequent Division? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a firm believer in empowering
	the House of Commons: he signed up to the e-petition process and the Backbench Business Committee. We are committed to a minimum of 35 days a year for the Backbench Business Committee, and although it is sometimes inconvenient for the Government, we firmly believe that it is right that the House of Commons should have some control of its agenda, at times choosing subjects that the Government perhaps would not have chosen.

Roger Gale: Speaking in Australia this week, President Kikwete of Tanzania urged investors in his country to reinvest the profits from their companies in his country. Unfortunately, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office well knows, he is the same President Kikwete who is in thrall to the media baron Reginald Mengi and who has done nothing to give satisfaction to my constituents Sarah and Stewart Hermitage, whose farm in Tanzania was stolen from them by Mr Mengi’s brother. Could we have a debate in Government time to discuss not only the joys but the dangers of investing in Tanzania?

George Young: I am sorry to hear about that loss of property on the part of my hon. Friend’s constituents. I shall certainly raise the issue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the FCO Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), is in his place at the moment—and see whether there are any representations it can make to get justice for the people whose property was confiscated.

Mark Lancaster: I am sorry that the shadow Leader of the House feels that there is something wrong with owning four Aston Martins. After all, if one can own two Jags, why not four Aston Martins? Certainly, my constituents who work at the Heritage Aston Martin works in Newport Pagnell will be hoping that Mr Beecroft will own a few more. May we have a debate on the future of the British motor manufacturing industry?

George Young: As the owner of a very small bicycle, I look at these fast and expensive cars with some envy. My hon. Friend makes a valid point—conspicuous consumption generates jobs in constituencies such as his. I think it was Lord Mandelson, was it not, who said that nothing inconvenienced him about millionaires? I hope that the Labour party will, perhaps, change its view about Aston Martins and Rolls-Royces, many of which are manufactured in constituencies represented by Labour Members of Parliament.

Eleanor Laing: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the law on succession to the throne, particularly the current inequality of male primogeniture? I ask that we have this debate soon, in the hope that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that is currently taking place might make some progress on this matter.

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he finds the present law unsatisfactory. It discriminates against women and against people who marry Roman Catholics. He has made it clear that he has written to the Heads of the Commonwealth to try to get agreement. I can only
	suggest to my hon. Friend that she awaits the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia and sees what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has to say on this matter at its conclusion.

Sarah Wollaston: May we have a debate on the role and responsibilities of Parliamentary Private Secretaries? Is it appropriate in a modern democracy that Members of Parliament who are neither Ministers nor in the Cabinet should be forced to resign if they vote against the Government? Does not that restrict their ability to represent their constituents and disproportionately reduce the power of the House?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sorry that two Parliamentary Private Secretaries left the Government earlier this week. She will know that when somebody is invited to become a Parliamentary Private Secretary, there is an assumed commitment that they will support the Government in the Division Lobby. If anybody feels unhappy about that, they should not become a Parliamentary Private Secretary. If, having become a PPS, someone feels they cannot support the Government in the Division Lobby, they have to stand down. I think that is set out in the ministerial code and it is a convention that is widely understood on both sides of the House.

David Nuttall: May we have a debate on how the one-in, one-out policy of controlling regulations is progressing, so that we can determine the extent to which regulations made in this House are being replaced by ones made in Brussels?

George Young: We touched on that earlier this week. We are committed to a red tape challenge of scrapping and simplifying regulations that are ineffective and obsolete. We have the one-in, one-out approach and I am sure that BIS Ministers will be happy to respond to detailed questions. We also have Lord Young’s report, which was produced a year ago and made a number of suggestions for relieving the burden on businesses, with the agenda of fostering employment and growth. I would welcome such a debate.

Andrew Stephenson: I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had time to see the set of Rolls-Royce Trent engine fan blades on the green in New Palace Yard, which were produced by the Rolls-Royce factory in Barnoldswick in my constituency. That display is part of a series of events to highlight the potential of high-value manufacturing and apprenticeships. May we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on what progress the Government have made on supporting apprenticeships?

George Young: Yes, I bicycled past the turbine and contrasted the horsepower that it represented with the horsepower on the bicycle. My hon. Friend might just have been in the House for BIS questions in which we had a very good exchange on apprenticeships. I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Further
	Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has done. We promised 50,000 extra apprenticeships in 2010-11, but we have actually delivered more than 100,000.

Charlie Elphicke: May we have a debate on what the Government are doing to be more family-friendly? Child care, child tax credits, Sure Start and the role of health visitors all matter greatly to people in Dover and Deal.

George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, which contained within it the answer, as he outlined a number of measures—child tax credit for struggling families, early years support for vulnerable two-year-olds, more support for child care within universal credit and increasing the number of health visitors. The Government would welcome such a debate; perhaps he would like to initiate one in Westminster Hall.

Jason McCartney: With reference to the shadow Leader of the House’s box-set collection of TV programmes, I suspect that the shadow Cabinet is currently watching “Lost”. May we please have a debate on empty homes? There is a real paradox in my local council area in that while the council is pushing through its top-down housing targets for tens of thousands of new homes, there are 11,000 empty homes. Local people find that very hard to explain when the countryside is being dug up for new homes.

George Young: As a former Housing Minister, I share my hon. Friend’s concern. There are about 350,000 empty houses in this country, which is an affront to those who are waiting for good housing. I commend the work of the Empty Homes Agency. In addition, the new homes bonus will apply also to local authorities that bring back into use homes that are currently empty, and other money is available within the local government budget to encourage local authorities to bring homes back into use. I commend my hon. Friend’s work on this issue, and I hope that all local authorities will do all they can to bring empty homes back into use.

Neil Carmichael: In my Gloucestershire constituency is a huge number of firms that trade with Brazil, but I am very apprehensive about the way in which we are developing trade links with Brazil, Russia, India and China—the so-called BRIC economies—because I sense that other countries are doing better than us. Can we put a spotlight on what the Government are doing to give comfort and support to businesses that wish to develop business in the BRIC economies?

George Young: I know that a number of my hon. Friends in BIS and other Departments make export trips abroad with business men to win export orders on behalf of this country, and they have undertaken a number of visits to the markets to which my hon. Friend refers. We have UK Trade & Investment and we have the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, supported by all the Government, which lead on this work. We want to use our network of staff across the globe to showcase UK strengths in sectors where we have world-beating capability and we hope to win more export orders and to provide jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Points of Order

Jack Dromey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I bow to no one in my admiration for the BBC “Today” programme, but it is not the forum in which Ministers should make important announcements. Today the Minister for Housing and Local Government, asserting that the big problem for 8 million social tenants is a lack of mobility, has launched HomeSwap Direct, a website—it is not so much “on your bike” now, but “on your website.” Had the Minister come to the House, we could have debated collapsing house building, soaring rents, a mortgage market where no one can get mortgages, and the big problem of rapidly rising unemployment where there are no jobs to move to. Has the Housing Minister indicated his intention to do the House the courtesy of coming to the House to make the announcement?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I received no notification of any intention by a Minister to make a statement on this subject. Off the top of my head, and without undertaking inquiries, I know the hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that it is difficult for me authoritatively to adjudicate on this matter. The reason why I say that is that I do not know at this stage whether what has happened is merely the launch of a statement, or the fulfilment of a policy commitment made on a previous occasion, or whether this is a new initiative of which the House should first have been informed, but as the hon. Gentleman would expect me to do, I shall assume the role of a detective and look into the matter, better to inform myself, and perhaps the hon. Member when I have done so.

Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not wish to have visited this on your head, but unfortunately the Scottish National party Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) repeated a calumny in the House recently, accusing a Member of threatening another Member, I believe without telling the Members that they were going to be named. I believe the Committee has met since then, and unfortunately the Leader of the House was not informed of the outcome of the formal meeting of the Select Committee, which clarified and, quite frankly, exonerated the Chair of that Committee of any threatening behaviour. Since it has been repeated in the House, can I ask you to look into this matter and call the SNP Member back to apologise on the Floor of the House? It is not politics; it is abuse of the House we are talking about here.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was doing nicely until he approached the conclusion of his remarks. There are two real points here. First, a Member who is planning to denounce the conduct or impugn the integrity of another Member should notify that Member in advance. Secondly, the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is properly the property of the Select Committee, which, I understand, has indeed deliberated upon it. The hon. Gentleman has used his point of order to offer his own admonishment of the hon. Member who he thinks has misbehaved. I do not think that further action by me at this time is required, but the hon. Gentleman has correctly put on record the fact that the Select Committee has had a discussion about the matter. If the hon. Gentleman will understand, I think it is perfectly reasonable now that we leave it there.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that very often a generic issue arises out of the very specific, and I wish to raise a generic issue and seek your guidance. The guidance I seek is on the necessity for accuracy in facts that are used in debates. Very often the interpretation of facts will differ, but facts are very important. Yesterday, in the course of a debate, a number of Labour local authorities were derided for, in the words of the hon. Member—I said the point is generic, so I will not name the individual—their “appalling and terrible” record on recycling. My own local authority was mentioned in the list, with a 33% rate of recycling. That was inaccurate; the actual rate is 51%. I request guidance from you, Mr Speaker, and possibly from “Erskine May”, on the need for accuracy, or alternatively, the need for Members to return to the House to correct the record, because I suspect that the other Labour local authorities named also have admirable recycling records and would want Hansard to reflect that accurately.

Mr Speaker: There are two simple points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. First, all Members take responsibility for, and are responsible for, the content of the statements that they make in the House. Secondly, it is of course desirable that facts adduced are indeed facts, but I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member, will understand when I say that if there were to be complete agreement as to the particular facts on any issue, let alone all issues, I have a feeling we would be witnessing the end of the House of Commons—and that isn’t going to happen.
	If the appetite of Members for raising points of order—actual or contrived—has now been exhausted, we can proceed to the main business.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.
	Mr Speaker, you will already have seen that debates on European matters are a bit like buses: you wait for ages and then two of these delightful treats come along in the same week. I am particularly grateful for the fortunate coincidence of timing that this debate on the Council of Europe arrives the week after the final collapse of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, because that provides a point of reflection and of comparison between what happens in so much of the world and what has happened in our own continent. The long rule by Gaddafi based on state-sponsored violence and terror throws into sharp relief, in particular, those liberties on which the British people have relied for centuries.
	Whatever view Members in any part of the House take on particular laws or on how human rights should be given effect here, I think we would all stand united on the continuing need for and relevance of fundamental human rights such as protection from torture, and the right to free speech, assembly and worship. That tradition in this country of respect for human rights is one reason why we are very proud to be taking on the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
	I acknowledge that there are in the House today members of the United Kingdom’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties, and I pay tribute to the work that they do on behalf of the House and the country, and welcome the fact that they will be able to contribute the fruits of their experience during this afternoon’s proceedings.
	As I hope Members will recall, the Council is the international organisation that helps promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law across the European continent. The United Kingdom was one of the founders of the organisation. Since its founding treaty was signed in this building in London in 1949, its membership has grown from 10 countries to 47, encompassing virtually the entire European continent. I think we in the United Kingdom can take pride in the fact that so many other European countries profess a belief in the importance of these fundamental principles, and also recognise the fact that membership of the Council of Europe and subscription to the European convention on human rights have proved a valuable framework within which the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe have been able to measure their own political development over the past 20 years.
	I want this afternoon to advance the case for the central priority of the United Kingdom’s chairmanship: reform of the European Court of Human Rights. I want to say straight away that we have had, and I am sure will have, lively domestic discussions on human rights, and Members will not always agree, but we share the historic respect for the achievement of the convention. The Government’s priority is to ensure that the European Court of Human Rights works more effectively and focuses on cases that actually need to be dealt with at
	the European level. That needs to happen not to weaken rights, but to strengthen them, and by so doing, to advance the rule of law, democracy and freedom.
	The United Kingdom was one of the principal architects of the European convention on human rights, which is the Council of Europe’s best known instrument. The convention embodies many of the basic rights and freedoms that have been fundamental to English, and then British, law for centuries: fair trial, freedom from torture and freedom of speech. Those are rights that we have enjoyed for hundreds of years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While my right hon. Friend is talking about the European Court of Human Rights, will he acknowledge that the Court currently has a backlog of approximately 166,000 cases? Is it not high time the Court underwent a thorough review of its working practices and competencies, and is not our chairmanship of the Council a good time to do that?

David Lidington: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Court is to continue to be treated with respect, it is important for it to find a way of getting on top of that grotesque backlog of cases, which is in nobody’s interests. I will say more about that later.

John Hemming: There have obviously been concerns about some of the ways in which the convention’s basic rights have been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Will the Government consider during their chairmanship proposing that certain resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly should assist the Court in interpreting the basic texts?

David Lidington: I am sure that my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and indeed proposals from the Parliamentary Assembly as a body, will be considered seriously in the course of the debates and conversations that we will have during the six months of our chairmanship and beyond.

Edward Leigh: Has not the whole process become ludicrously abused? Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the diaries of Phil Woolas, the former Immigration Minister, which reveal that his job was made absolutely impossible. For instance, he had to release to Osama bin Laden’s son the file on him, even though he was not living here. The whole process has become abused. What plans has my right hon. Friend to repatriate powers on human rights to this country so that we can have a proper and sound immigration policy?

David Lidington: I have to tell my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly and plays an active part in its proceedings, that reading Mr. Woolas’ diaries is a delight that is still in store for me. I fear that he is trying to tempt me on to the question of how the human rights incorporated in the convention are implemented in the United Kingdom. As the House knows, the Government have established an independent commission on human rights, chaired by Leigh Lewis, which is deliberating on these matters and considering the different ideas that have been proposed. It will report by the end of 2012.

Alan Meale: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I will give way one last time, and then I must make progress.

Alan Meale: Will the Minister confirm a bit of information? As he touched on earlier, there are about 800 million people, comprising 47 nations, in the greater European area. I hope that he will confirm for Members on both sides of the House that, on all the judgments that the Court has made so far, this country has never refused to endorse the Court’s findings.

David Lidington: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right.
	The convention played an important role after the second world war in re-establishing democracy and the rule of law across western Europe. It played a vital role after the cold war in leading the former states of the Soviet Union and its satellites to start adopting the principles of democratic liberalism. The convention remains crucial in tackling the murder of journalists in Russia, for example, or questions of religious freedom in Turkey. There are also telling recent examples of its relevance here at home—for example, in preventing the misuse of stop-and-search powers.
	The problem is not with the fundamental principles of human rights expressed through the convention, but there are real issues that rightly cause concern in this House and more widely—issues that, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, matter to all countries that are party to the convention and members of the Council of Europe. Those relate to the operation of the Court in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the Court and recognises its important role, but it is not working as it should, for at least two reasons.
	First, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds rightly said, it is struggling under a huge workload, and drowning under a backlog of more than 150,000 cases, which is growing by roughly 20,000 additional cases each year. The eightfold increase in case loads since 2001 shows that a sensible refocusing on what really matters is not a subject that can simply be deferred for another day; it is an urgent priority.
	That urgency is illustrated further by the fact that more than 90% of cases before the Court, when they finally get to the top of the queue and are properly considered, or found to be inadmissible, simply do not come within the scope of the convention, or the procedural rules are found not to have been observed. For cases involving the United Kingdom that figure is higher. Roughly 97% of cases brought against the United Kingdom are found to be inadmissible—and that is before we get on to whether in the other cases—the minority—the finding is for or against the country alleged to have broken the terms of the convention. The backlog is the first reason why there is an urgent need to reform the court.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend announced yesterday that the Government will host a conference at Wilton Park on the theme of the 2020 vision for the European Court of Human
	Rights. Will he confirm that members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly will be invited to participate in the conference?

David Lidington: I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend’s interest in participating and will ensure that the participation of members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly is properly considered. I will make sure that I consider it myself.

Mike Hancock: The real problem with the backlog is that reforms to the Court cannot restructure the backlog or effectively fillet out any of the cases that might prove to be inadmissible. One of the prime objectives of our chairmanship must be to find a unified view that would facilitate that filleting process, and thus allow the backlog to be handled properly.

David Lidington: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend.
	The second reason also explains why the backlog has been allowed to develop. The Court has at times been too ready to substitute its own judgment for that of national courts and Parliaments. The European Court of Human Rights was never intended by its founders to be an additional tier of appeal for routine domestic judgments. No court could ever hope to offer redress on all matters to 800 million people. National courts are best placed to understand national problems and traditions of human rights. Enforcing rights in situations where the drafters of the convention never intended them to be is the wrong direction of travel for the Court, and that situation is getting worse and is undermining the Court’s authority and efficiency.

Sandra Osborne: Can the Minister give a few examples in a UK context, of where the court has been guilty of depriving us of national sovereignty?

David Lidington: I ask the hon. Lady simply to look at the sheer volume of cases before the Court. We argue that there needs to be a system under which the principle of subsidiarity, which the Court is already supposed to observe, is given greater weight. That will require not just a United Kingdom view from the chair, but consensus among member states. We are talking to colleagues throughout the Council of Europe about the right way forward, because what we are seeking to do certainly does not come from any hostility to the Court as an institution. In fact, concerns about the backlog, the case load and the damage being done to its reputation are widely shared not only among state parties, but by the secretary-general and the authorities in the Council itself.

Michael Connarty: Will the Minister give way on that point?

David Lidington: I will give way once more, then I really am going to make some progress.

Michael Connarty: I thank the Minister. I am trying to be helpful, because I totally agree with and follow his logic on the backlog, but when he states that the Court was never meant to be a court of appeal against a national court’s ruling, surely that logic is wrong, because
	there cannot be an allowance, for example, for the Ukrainian court that put the country’s former President in jail for carrying out policies that its Parliament had decided. There must be somewhere for people to appeal on human rights grounds, and that is the Court. I presume the Minister meant that the Court could not provide redress in all cases—but in specific cases of such high contestability there must be a court that is above national, political courts.

David Lidington: I do not differ from the hon. Gentleman in principle, but we need effective criteria that everyone—from the judges of the Court to the states parties—will accept as enabling the Court to differentiate properly between cases that should be considered at that European level and those that ought to have been dealt with according to the legal systems of states parties that have demonstrated good traditions of respecting human rights.
	All this means that there is a clear and pressing case for reform, and all 47 members of the Council of Europe have already signed up to a reform process. The goal of our chairmanship is to drive forward the changes that began in Council meetings at Interlaken and Izmir, and to agree a final package that makes a real impact on the operation of the Court.
	I announced, in a written statement to Parliament yesterday, our full set of chairmanship priorities, following my discussion on Tuesday with our friend and ally the Council of Europe secretary-general Thorbjørn Jagland. My statement set out more detail on the reform for which we are pressing. It included proposals that would make the Court more efficient to enable it to deal with its backlog of applications, would reinforce the idea that the Court’s role was a subsidiary one, with states having the primary responsibility to protect convention rights, and would ensure that the best possible processes were in place for nominating judges to the Court, and that the Court’s case law was clear and consistent.
	How we will do that? Reform requires the agreement of all 47 member states, and there is no getting round that fact, so we will accord the highest political priority to securing consensus on the necessary reforms by means of a political declaration at the end of our chairmanship. That declaration would record political agreement to a package of reforms and set the scene for later implementation under subsequent chairmanships. The declaration, we hope, will include, where necessary, amendments to the procedural sections of the convention, and provide the basis for a decision of the Committee of Ministers, to be adopted at its annual meeting on 14 May 2012.
	No one should be in any doubt that delivering those goals will take time and a lot of intensive and complicated negotiations, but I do believe that the winds of change are in our favour, and if we achieve the reform that we seek, we stand to gain a stronger Council of Europe and a more effective Court, focused better on real substantive breaches of human rights.

Jim Sheridan: On declarations, there is no more fundamental right than that of a person to live freely and independently in their own country without fear of intimidation. The Minister will be aware that Cyprus follows the UK as
	chair of the Council, so will he assure Cypriots listening to this debate that we will do all we can and work tirelessly to ensure that the Cyprus problem, as it is now called, is satisfactorily concluded?

David Lidington: With respect, I may correct the hon. Gentleman, because the chairmanship proceeds in alphabetical sequence, so the Albanians will take over from us. I can certainly assure him, however, that the Foreign Secretary and I remain completely committed to doing all that lies within our power to work for an outcome in Cyprus that brings about the creation of a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation, with equal rights for all communities, and in compliance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It is not for the United Kingdom to determine what happens in Cyprus, because the process has to be Cypriot led if it is to work and if there is to be an enduring accord, but we give what support we can to the communities in Cyprus and to the work of the UN Secretary-General and his special envoy, Alexander Downer.

Alan Meale: rose—

David Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, because he has had one bite of the cherry and I want to make progress. I do not want to be sidetracked into a further debate about Cyprus, which I am sure the House will have an opportunity to discuss in the future.
	We have a unique opportunity to secure improvements to the Court, to enhance its credibility, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and to ensure that the legitimate decisions and traditions of national courts and legal systems are properly respected.
	Hon. Members will be only too aware of the domestic backdrop to the programme, about which there is great interest abroad. The House will know, too, that the Government have established an independent commission with a remit to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights, which would incorporate and build on all our obligations under the convention. I hope that the commission’s work will assist in bringing clarity to an area of contentious debate, and indeed it has already advised the Government very usefully on Court reform, but to avoid any doubt let me reaffirm that in the Government’s mind there is no question of the UK leaving the European convention on human rights. The coalition’s programme for government makes very clear our commitment to the convention and to the values it embodies.
	The Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), commented on this subject very eloquently on Monday just gone, saying:
	“The United Kingdom signed the Convention on the first day it was open for signature...The United Kingdom was the first country to ratify the Convention the following year. The United Kingdom will not be the first country to leave the Convention.”
	I have spoken at length about Court reform, but our goals for our chairmanship touch on other significant matters, and I would like to close by turning briefly to them.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Minister for setting out the policy so clearly, and I have had an opportunity to look at the priorities and
	objectives of the chairmanship. He mentions the Bill of Rights commission’s interim advice, and it contains some good recommendations on Court reform, particularly those based on the model of the International Criminal Court, whereby Strasbourg ought to look at only the most serious violations or fundamental freedoms. Is that the mandate which the Government will look to achieve with their European partners?

David Lidington: We take all the independent commission’s advice very seriously, and we look forward to the fruits of its later discussions, but, certainly, strengthening the principle of subsidiarity in the Court’s work is central to the programme of action that we envisage during our chairmanship.
	In addition to the issues that I have already covered, we will continue actively to support Secretary-General Jagland’s programme of reform of the Council of Europe as an organisation. He has made good progress, including a reduced and more focused set of programmes, and I spoke to him this week about priorities for the final stages of the reform programme.
	In particular, I am pleased to say that the UK has succeeded in persuading the 46 other member states to keep the Council of Europe budget under strict control, with zero real growth for the next two years, subject to strict conditions on wider efficiency reforms and any inflation increase remaining below 2%. We will work with our partners in the Council of Europe to promote an open internet, not only on access and content, but on freedom of expression. That is also a key policy priority, and one of the issues to be addressed at the London conference on cyber-space, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will host on 1 November. Our chairmanship is an ideal opportunity to advance our objectives through international co-operation, and to this end we will seek to ensure that the Council of Europe’s internet governance strategy is adopted.

Roger Gale: If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will return to the internet problem later, because it is serious.
	I referred to the Council of Europe’s budget in the Hemicycle, and suggested that it might be cut, but that word is not in the lexicon. Europe does not understand the possibility of cutting a budget. It only ever talks about an increase. Why are we considering an increase?

David Lidington: Ambitions must sometimes be tempered by the need to obtain the necessary consensus. In the context of getting 46 other countries to agree, the freeze that I talked about is a pretty good outcome. Further encouragement is that the combination of the freeze in the Council of Europe’s budget and the recalculation of the relative contributions of member states to that budget means that the United Kingdom will pay a smaller proportion in 2012 than we did in 2011. That is a good outcome of our negotiations.

Robert Walter: Discussions on the budget take place in Strasbourg, and 27 of the 47 member states are members of the European Union. Those 27 member states are sitting idly by while the Fundamental Rights Agency, which was established in
	Vienna and has some spurious objectives, increases its budget for allegedly doing a human rights job on behalf of the 27 states.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend, who is the leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, makes his point cogently. He tempts me on to a much bigger debate about European Union expenditure, but I will confine myself to the matter before us.
	The Government take the need for budgetary control over European Union agencies very seriously indeed. The growth of such expenditure and the proliferation of agencies within the European Union have been overlooked for too long. We have been making strong representations to the Commission about that, and have sought to build alliances with other EU member states to secure the sort of reform and budgetary discipline that my hon. Friend rightly wants.

Simon Hughes: rose—

David Lidington: I must make some progress, because other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
	During our chairmanship, we will work to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity across Europe. The Government are committed to using their relationship with other countries to advocate strongly for changes to discriminatory practices and laws that criminalise homosexuality in other countries.
	We will work towards a more effective and efficient role for the Council of Europe in supporting local and regional democracy. The Council has a significant programme of activities in this area, including monitoring and sharing expertise. The UK supports that, but wants it to be streamlined and more carefully targeted.
	Finally, we will support strengthening the rule of law in member states. We will work towards practical recommendations in this area, in co-operation with our partners in the Committee of Ministers, the secretariat and the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, the European Commission for Democracy through Law, which is usually referred to as the Venice Commission.
	The Council of Europe is an important institution, whose values we share, and in whose proud record of achievement there is much to applaud. I hope that all hon. Members will support the UK’s efforts during our chairmanship to deliver improvements in the areas I have set out. Efforts to spread democracy, human rights and the rule of law are profoundly in our national interest and that of nations throughout Europe. If achieved, our objectives will not only benefit our citizens, but will have the potential to make a real difference for the good in the lives of people across our continent and beyond.

Emma Reynolds: This is an important and timely debate, and it is absolutely right that we have an opportunity to discuss in the House the UK’s forthcoming chairmanship of the Council of Europe. However, it is a shame that the most pro-European member of the Cabinet is not here to open the debate as was planned until late this morning.
	There are now 47 members of the Council, and the period of chairmanship is six months, so this opportunity does not come around often. According to my rudimentary mathematics, the next time the UK will be in the chair will around 2035. The last time the UK was in the chair was in the early 1990s when the Conservative party was falling out about another European institution—the European Union. I sense a bit of déjà vu, and I trust that this afternoon’s debate will be less heated and divided than the debate earlier this week.
	Our membership of the Council of Europe has been supported by successive Governments of different political colours and persuasions for the last six decades. It is worth reflecting on the history of the institution, which was shaped by the aftermath of the second world war and the defeat of fascism, and later by the collapse of communism. When Winston Churchill made his speech at the 1949 gathering in Strasbourg, he talked of an
	“ancient city still scarred by the wounds of war”.
	The horror of that global conflict, and the destruction and loss of life throughout Europe, led to the growing realisation that avoiding future wars had to be a priority.
	That realisation brought together some of the leading statesmen of post-war Europe, with much of the earliest thinking coming from Winston Churchill. Other Conservative politicians played a role, particularly former Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe, who was instrumental in drawing up the European convention on human rights, which Clement Attlee’s Labour Government ratified in 1950. A cross-party consensus held then and over the following decades, and I hope that it will do so today.

Edward Leigh: We all accept that, but the fact is that the process has gone way beyond what was envisaged by people such as Winston Churchill.
	The hon. Lady presumably wants to protect vulnerable women. Going back again to the diaries of former immigration Minister, he wrote that his proposal to increase the marriage age from 18 to 21 for a family visa would be overturned by judicial review because of the judges constantly referring to the convention on human rights. It is anti-human rights now, and we must reform it fundamentally.

Emma Reynolds: I agree that the court needs to be reformed, and I will come to that, but I do not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. Like the Minister for Europe, I have not had a chance to read my former colleague’s memoirs.
	The Council today is very different from when it was first established, and Europe has changed beyond recognition. The rush of countries to join the Council of Europe in the years following the fall of communism extended its membership and reach significantly. Today, the Council of Europe has 47 member countries, covering 800 million people, and a vast land mass stretching from Reykjavik to Vladivostok—that is a tongue twister. It has led the way in protecting and promoting the rule of law, human rights and democracy in Europe. Many hon. Members, past and present, have taken part in the Council of Europe’s election monitoring to ensure that democracy is upheld in every member state, and I
	commend them for that. I want to join the Europe Minister in commending the work of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady mentioned some distinguished contributions to the Council of Europe by Conservatives in past years. Does she agree that the leader of our delegation, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), has played a very distinguished part in the current process to change the rules of the Parliamentary Assembly to make the way in which it operates more streamlined and effective?

Emma Reynolds: I join the hon. Gentleman in that view. I recognise that Members across this House have played very important roles in the Council of Europe at different times.
	Despite the fact that a Conservative Government were the driving force behind the European convention on human rights, a Labour Government put those rights into UK law in 1999, and we are proud of that. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives British citizens the right to bring cases before British courts rather than having to petition European judges directly. Although we remain committed to the European convention and the European Court, we also recognise that the Court needs reform. The Government have said today that its reform should be a priority for our forthcoming chairmanship, and I support that.
	As has been mentioned, the Government set up an independent commission that has presented interim recommendations concerning that reform. The commission highlighted three areas that need to be addressed: the need substantially to reduce the number of cases brought before the Court; the need to consider the remedies that the Court may grant; and the need to improve the process of selecting high-quality judges.

Alan Meale: At the moment, the judges are elected in the Assembly by all Members of the Assembly, but the Interlaken process proposes to diminish that democratic selection mechanism. The current process involves not just the election of the judges but the interviewing of the candidates, in which two criteria must be fulfilled: first, they have to be fully qualified to stand for election; and secondly, there must be at least one woman among the three candidates. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we should move away from those principles.

Emma Reynolds: I am a great supporter of gender equality, but the selection process needs to be improved.

Mike Hancock: For those of us who have had the privilege of being in the Council of Europe for any length of time, it is clear that it is not the process of selection by the Council of Europe that affects the calibre of judges but the pathetic selection process that goes on in member states after people have put their names forward. On most occasions, that leaves the Council of Europe having to pick the least worst of a bad bunch.

Emma Reynolds: I am sure that the Europe Minister has noted the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
	Any reform of the Court must begin by addressing the crippling backlog of cases before it; I understand that there are 150,000 cases and that number is increasing at a rate of 20,000 a year. I hope that at the end of the six months in which our Government have the chairmanship, the Opposition will be in a position to give them credit for pushing forward with these reforms. Indeed, the test of success for the Government is not only what they do in the six months when they are in charge, but whether they are able to inspire successive chairmanships of the Court and the Council to take on and continue their reforms.
	Until now, I have been fairly consensual, but I am about to embark on a section of my speech that is perhaps not so consensual.

Graham Stuart: Who wrote it?

Emma Reynolds: I wrote it, thank you very much. That is very patronising of the hon. Gentleman. I might be a young blonde woman, but I am able to write my own speeches.
	There is another area where the Government need to take action. It is incumbent on this Government to tackle the misconceptions about the European convention on human rights. I am sure that the Minister is only too aware of how some members of his own Government have peddled myths about human rights legislation to further certain political arguments, and of how there is a confusion—sometimes, it seems, a conflation—of the rulings and activities of the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the European Union and the European Court of Justice. In some cases, there seems to be a deliberate lumping together of any institution with the word “Europe” in its title, with the assumption that Europe has a malign influence on this country.
	Will the Minister reassure us that the Government will take a lead on challenging such misconceptions, not only in his party but in the country, and champion the positive role that our membership of the Council of Europe has played in furthering human rights and democracy in the UK and in other countries across the continent? After all, taking on the mantle of chairmanship brings with it certain responsibilities, one of which, surely, is demonstrating accuracy in debates on human rights. Let us hope to hear no more misleading myths about cats or other bogus stories.
	Labour Members remain firmly committed to the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights, but we recognise that this does not necessarily mean sticking to the status quo, but reforming the Court. We want the Government to use their six-month chairmanship to push forward with reforms to ensure that the Council continues to meet the aims and objectives in a way that is beneficial for all member countries, including the UK. Upholding a universal notion of human rights is a sign of a civilised nation and something that we should be proud of, not something that should be rubbished, heckled or blamed at every opportunity.
	As I underlined in my introduction, successive Governments of different political persuasions have supported our membership of the Council of Europe and obligations that come with it. There is a long history and tradition in our country of which we should be proud.

Dominic Raab: I agree that we should not automatically, in a knee-jerk way, blame Strasbourg for everything. However, has the hon. Lady seen the comments by the Lord Chief Justice, which read:
	“I would like to say that maybe Strasbourg shouldn’t win and doesn’t need to win”?
	Does she accept, as the Lord Chief Justice does, that there is a legitimate debate about the expansion of human rights through judicial legislation?

Emma Reynolds: I do accept that, and I think it is a debate that we will have today.
	Although modernisation and reform of the Council of Europe are needed, the values that underpinned its formation and membership are just as valid today as they were in 1950, and we should all be proud of those values.

Robert Walter: As the Minister for Europe said in his opening remarks, this is an interesting week in the House of Commons when we have two debates on Europe. If I may say so, it is good that we are debating Europe, and not necessarily the European Union, today, although I will touch on the relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Union.
	As we have already heard, the Council of Europe dates back to 1949 and is very much dedicated to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We can be proud to have been one of its founding fathers. It now runs to 47 member states across the continent of Europe. The only states that are not members are Belarus, Kosovo and Vatican City—which I understand is not yet a democracy.

Edward Leigh: Nor should it ever be. [ Laughter. ]

Robert Walter: As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out, the fact that there are 47 member states means that it will be 23 years before we get the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers again. It is therefore very important that we make good use of our six months in the chairmanship that starts in a week or so.
	This House, as has been pointed out, is represented in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Eighteen Members from both Houses of Parliament serve as full members of the Parliamentary Assembly and a further 18 stand ready as substitutes.

Jim Sheridan: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for Europe, does he accept that his party’s delegation is not made up of the most enthusiastic people on European matters? Hopefully, after the British chairmanship, we will have a more enlightened delegation of Government Members to the Council of Europe.

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think he will find that more members of the delegation are present on my side of the House than on his, where there are only four. The delegates from my party play an active role in the proceedings of the Parliamentary Assembly, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who chairs the committee on migration, refugees and population.
	One of the powers of the Parliamentary Assembly is to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights. I have often heard statements in the British press, and occasionally from colleagues, that we should not be subject to the judgments of unelected and unaccountable judges. Well, we do not have any elected judges in this country, but we do have an elected British judge who serves on the European Court of Human Rights.
	Perhaps I may correct one other myth. Often we are told that Europe has acquired a flag and an anthem. Those are not the flag and the anthem of the European Union. They were adopted as far back as 1955 by the Council of Europe. Just like Liverpool football club, which also has a flag and an anthem, the Council of Europe has not yet become a nation state.
	I want to deal with the United Kingdom agenda and one important aspect of it in particular. During our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, an important ongoing issue that may make some progress is the accession of the European Union to the European convention on human rights. The question of European Union accession engenders mixed responses. Among the non-EU members of the Council of Europe, it is considered to be a good thing. They wonder why the institutions of the European Union should not be covered by the European convention on human rights and why the European Court of Human Rights should not have jurisdiction over its institutions. In that spirit, I believe that we should take this matter forward. My concern is about the manner of the participation of the European Union.

James Clappison: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the conscientious and diligent way in which he has led the British delegation to the Council of Europe. I agree with the remarks with which he has prefaced his comments on the accession of the European Union. Does he agree, none the less, that we would all be the losers, in particular the non-EU member states in the Council of Europe, if the accession of the EU resulted in it appearing that there were two classes of members in the Council of Europe: EU member states and non-EU member states?

Robert Walter: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I will come on to say why I believe that there could be dangerous developments on this issue, particularly in relation to the Committee of Ministers, of which the United Kingdom is about to take the chair, and its voting procedures when European Union matters are under consideration. At the Dispatch Box earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in relation to the eurozone countries, that it was against his basic view that there should be any form of caucusing within the Council of Ministers. I think that that is absolutely right.
	I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe that when he issued his statement yesterday on the UK agenda for the Council of Europe, he also issued a written ministerial statement on voting by European Union member states in multilateral organisations. The EU, of course, is not a member of the Council of Europe at the moment, but it aspires to be one. I therefore raise a concern that has been raised not only
	by EU member states, but more particularly by non-EU member states. If there was a judgment in the European Court of Human Rights against an EU member state, would the EU member states in the Committee of Ministers, when it came to enforcing that judgment, vote as a bloc or would they do what they do today, which is to decide individually how the judgment is to be implemented?

Sandra Osborne: I, too, pay tribute to the fantastic job that the hon. Gentleman does as the leader of the delegation. Does he agree that unless the EU is subject to the same rules as the countries, some non-EU member states may use that as an excuse not to carry out their obligations?

Robert Walter: I think that the hon. Lady is right. She is making the point for me that we must be seen to be fair and even-handed in the way we enforce judgments. That might become even more of a problem.
	This issue is already taken account of in the draft of the accession of the EU. I am afraid that the Lisbon treaty is quoted in aid on this matter. If there was a judgment against an institution of the European Union, such as the Commission, the European Court of Justice or the European Central Bank, the 27 EU member states—or 28 as there will be by the time this is implemented, with the accession of Croatia—would be obliged under the Lisbon treaty to vote as a bloc. That brings into question the whole history of fairness and even-handedness in the Committee of Ministers.
	The reason given for that is that if there was a judgment against the EU, it would be up to the 27 EU member states to implement that judgment. They therefore have to act as one and as a party. That is fine, but it sounds rather like they will be judge, jury and executioner. We have to question seriously how we will take that matter forward. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that in his summing up.
	The next point may sound rather technical, but it goes back to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s comment earlier that we are developing a situation in which there will be European Union mechanisms and institutions that all 27 member states are not involved in, but only the 17 eurozone members, such as the European financial stability facility and the European Central Bank. If there was a judgment against one of those entities in the European Court of Human Rights, would we vote as 27 member states or would the 17 vote together? Would the 10 non-eurozone members be let off the obligation in the Lisbon treaty to vote as one? I would again be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.

Roger Gale: It gets a bit worse than that. There is a thing called the transfrontier broadcasting directive, which is a European Union instrument. There is also a thing called the transfrontier broadcasting convention, which is a Council of Europe convention that preceded the directive. The convention needs updating and the Council of Europe was in the process of doing so intelligently and in line with technical developments. The European Commissioner responsible for broadcasting has told the Council of Europe and its 47 members, many of which are not members of the European Union, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that we cannot discuss the
	matter. What right does the European Union have to say to the Council of Europe—the greater body—that it can or cannot discuss something?

Robert Walter: My hon. Friend makes a very significant point about the sovereignty of member states, whether they be members of the European Union or of the Council of Europe. I believe that the sovereignty of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe should be absolute in the case of a Council of Europe convention.

Alan Meale: Like the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, I pay tribute to him for his work at the Council of Europe over many years. Members of all parties will agree that he does a fine job. I apologise, but I will have to leave the debate shortly to chair the meeting in Westminster Hall.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the sovereignty of nations, what about Turkey? Its has refused to accept the outcome of the Louzides case on the confiscation of property—it has paid up, but it has never accepted it. What about its current threat that if Cyprus is given the presidency of the Council of Ministers, it will leave the Council of Europe and not pursue any path towards entry into the European Union?

Robert Walter: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I am an avowed supporter of Turkish membership of the European Union, but that does not mean that I will in any way make excuses for the Turkish Government’s non-compliance with their international obligations. I also regret the Turkish Prime Minister’s statement that Turkey would not participate in any discussions with the EU should Cyprus take on the presidency of the Council of Ministers. That is a wrong decision, as I have said to many Turkish colleagues.
	To return to the question of EU accession, I wish to refer for a moment to the role of the European Parliament. It has been conceded that when it comes to the question of the election of judges, the European Parliament will have the same rights as the largest member states. We are one of those five largest member states. However, the draft arrangements go on to give the European Parliament special treatment, which I think is unjustified. It will have an ex officio place on the sub-committee that interviews the candidates for the post of judge in the European Court of Human Rights. As the leader of one of the other large delegations, I ask why I cannot appoint an ex officio member to that sub-committee on the basis that I should have the same voting rights as the European Parliament.
	Under its internal mechanisms, the European Parliament will have the power to veto the three candidates who are on the shortlist. No other Parliament has that power. It will also have the power to be on the sub-committee that interviews the candidates. I contend that that will create an uneven playing field, and I hope we will resist it when we come to debate EU accession.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that is quite hard to understand for people who are not on the Council, or regularly attending it, is that some of the largest member countries are not in the EU? They are proud countries, and sadly often ones that are on the receiving end of judgments of the Court. If the arrangements that are made do not seem to be
	fair and equal right across the Council of Europe area, it affects how they look at the Council and its judgments. It also affects whether those judgments are enforceable and will stick.

Robert Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, because it sums up the fact that what I have described will bring into question the legitimacy of the decisions of the Committee of Ministers when it comes to enforcing judgments that have been handed down by the Court.
	I want to move on to one aspect of the United Kingdom’s agenda for our chairmanship, with which the Minister also dealt at length. It is the reform of the European Court of Human Rights, which not only we in this country but many member states across Europe welcome.
	There seems to be some dispute about what the backlog of cases in the Court is at the moment. The last figure that I heard, which was at the beginning of this month from the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, was 162,000 cases, and growing at the rate of 2,000 a month. I therefore welcome the approach that we are taking as the new chair of the Committee of Ministers.

Brian Binley: Is my hon. Friend concerned that most of us sitting in the Chamber today might not be here when the end of that list is reached? Does that bother him?

Robert Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which brings me neatly to the next one that I wanted to make.
	I welcome the work of the commission on a Bill of Rights under the chairmanship of Sir Leigh Lewis. It was set up to advise on a British Bill of Rights, but at the request of the Prime Minister the first document that it published was advice to the Government on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights. It has expressed a view on that question, and I shall come to that in a moment. I also welcome the interest taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I know has been to Strasbourg and met the Court and is considering that very important issue.
	I wish to deal with four issues related to the reform of the Court. The first, to which a number of Members have alluded, is the quality of the judges. Under the existing procedure, each member state puts forward three nominees when there is a vacancy for a judge of that nationality. Under the new procedures, those candidates are to be interviewed by the Committee of Ministers and by a sub-committee of the Parliamentary Assembly set up specifically for the purpose of making recommendations on which of the three judges is probably the best candidate. It then comes down to the Parliamentary Assembly to vote on those judges.
	There has been phenomenal criticism in the Parliamentary Assembly that the judges nominated are not up to the quality that one expects in such an important court, which deals with human rights across the continent. Some of the judges are academics, and some are only what I would call administrative lawyers, but I believe that judges should have experience of sitting as court judges, preferably in the supreme court of their member state. They should not be people who
	have applied because they have been teaching a nice academic course specialising in human rights at a university for the past few years and thought, “Why not go to Strasbourg for a few years?” That is not the right way to select candidates.
	The Parliamentary Assembly is considering another matter of some concern. If one of those judges drops out and is unable to perform his or her duties, the member state in question can nominate ad hoc judges to sit in their place in the Court. In the past four years, 77 ad hoc judges appointed to sit in for judges who were unable to be in Strasbourg were involved in 516 judgments. I am not sure, and there is some doubt, whether those ad hoc judges are of the same quality, because they do not go through the same selection procedure. They are not nominated, they are not interviewed either by the committee of Ministers or by the sub-committee of the Parliamentary Assembly, and they are certainly not voted for by the Parliamentary Assembly. I am not sure that the spirit of the convention is being implemented if we allow those 77 ad hoc judges to sit in judgment.
	The second and most important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe was on subsidiarity and the filtering of cases, causing the backlog. Is the ECHR the final court of appeal for the 800 million people who live on the continent of Europe? I contend that it is not. I believe that it exists to act in partnership with our national supreme courts and that it should not be used as the final court of appeal. A number of members of the delegation met the secretary-general of the Council of Europe on Tuesday to discuss that. He said that—this is even worse—the majority of the cases before the Court are involve people using it not as their final court of appeal, but their court of first instance. In the majority of cases, people are disgruntled by something that has happened in their locality—a remote part of Russia or wherever—and they do not use the Russian legal system first and foremost, but go straight to Strasbourg. We must stop that from happening.
	People who appeal to the Supreme Court in this country, or even to the Court of Appeal on their way up to the Supreme Court, must seek leave to do so. We must create a situation like that. Requiring people to seek leave to appeal would mean that a judge in this country or another member state would determine whether such a case is admissible, or whether it should be heard by a national supreme court and whether that should be the end of the road.

Edward Leigh: The European Court often gets blamed unfairly for judicial activism, but the real judicial activism is happening in our own courts, because the convention is incorporated in our law. That was the big mistake, and I am constantly referring to it, which is why I intervened earlier. In a sense, the focus of the debate is wrong. We cannot focus only on the Court in Strasbourg; we must also focus on our own courts.

Robert Walter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Government were right to set up the commission on a Bill of Rights, which will consider whether the Human Rights Act 1998 should be replaced by a British Bill of Rights that better reflects the sentiments he expresses.

Oliver Heald: By way of a rider to my hon. Friend’s point on seeking leave to appeal on a point of law, which I basically agree with, occasionally, a court in a country refuses leave in circumstances that do not hold water legally. Should there not at that point be a possibility of applying for leave to appeal directly to the Court in Strasbourg?

Robert Walter: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. We must strike the right balance—strike out spurious claims but not genuine ones. In some cases, those making genuine claims could be refused leave to appeal for, if I may say, political reasons, when their case should go to the Strasbourg Court. In this country, I have every confidence that the Supreme Court or any other lower court would act in the interests of the law and equity, but I might question the courts in a number of other member states—I will not name them in the Chamber.
	My third point concerns the competence of the Court and its relationship with national Parliaments and sovereign member states. That the House debated and voted overwhelmingly against prisoner voting rights showed that we in this country feel that somebody committed to jail for an indictable offence should have their voting rights taken away while in prison. That is at variance with the judgment of the Court. I am not a lawyer, but in my view it is absolutely right that a court can sentence somebody to prison and so deny their liberty in several areas. In sentencing them to prison, we are not infringing most of their convention rights—for example, we are not infringing their right to life or imposing on them inhuman and degrading treatment. Instead, we are deciding to deny them certain liberties—for example, by not allowing them to go home to their family every night, we are denying them the right to a family life.

Brian Binley: Do the people sent to prison not have the choice about whether they go to prison, and should that not be a major consideration? Furthermore, is this not a constitutional right, rather than a human right? I know that that takes us on to aspects of law, but these are the things that make people very angry.

Robert Walter: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the point that we are making. We could have a wider debate about why people commit crimes and why they go to prison, but my specific point is about the denial of liberty and what convention rights that denial of liberty impinges on. It is accepted that some rights in the convention can legitimately be denied. I am interested that Mr Hirst, when he went to Strasbourg, did not say that he was being denied the right to a family life by being in prison and ask why he could not have his wife and children there. He picked on one emotive issue—his voting and democratic rights—but I think that it is absolutely right that this Parliament decide the voting rights of prisoners, and if it decides that prisoners should not have a vote, so be it. That is part of our national sovereignty. It is a matter for national legislatures, not the Court.
	My fourth point concerns the backlog. As I mentioned, the figure that I have is 162,000 cases, growing by 2,000 a month. I commend the commission on a Bill of Rights and its advice on this matter: it expressed concern that, whatever reforms we came up with for the Court,
	they would not deal with the cases currently in the system, and it recommended that we find a way to clear the backlog. One of the commission’s proposals, which is worth taking forward, is that across Europe are retired judges experienced in human rights law who might be brought out of retirement on, say, a one-year contract, subject to their being vetted, interviewed and so on, and that they be given responsibility solely for going through the list of 162,000 cases, deciding which are admissible and, if necessary, immediately sending them to the Court for judgment.

Bob Stewart: Did the commission not also recommend that the judges be able to dismiss cases, in order to reduce their number, saying, “We cannot deal with this anymore.” The figure of 162,000 is ginormous. We would never get through them.

Robert Walter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we cannot get through them. We know that about 97% of those cases are inadmissible and could be got rid of straightaway, but we need somebody to sit down, go through the paperwork and say that they are inadmissible. If that were done, we might be able immediately to bring before the Court the few thousand cases that lie in the balance, or use this coterie of retired judges to sit in judgment if there are points of law involved that the Court has already been determined in previous cases and so no new judgments to be made.
	It is not all as simple as that, though, because there are other constitutional issues. Many of the cases in Strasbourg get there because, as I understand it, there is no supreme court in the Russian Federation to adjudicate on them. They come straight to Strasbourg from the provincial courts, so we might have to persuade the Russian Federation to have a look at its court procedures—after it has got through its elections, of course.
	I welcome the United Kingdom chairmanship. I know from colleagues in the Chamber that we are willing and ready to help the Minister and the Government to take forward our agenda, particularly on reform of the Court. The Interlaken process set in train some years ago was followed by a high-level conference under the Turkish presidency in Izmir, in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor participated on behalf of this country. I hope that we come up with concrete proposals in our six months to ensure that reform of the Court is not only an agenda item, but a reality.
	I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe well. I commend him and his deputy in Strasbourg, our excellent ambassador, Mrs Eleanor Fuller, who has done tremendous work. Thorbjørn Jagland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister, is an excellent secretary-general—one of the best the Council of Europe has had for a number of years—and is also very much in tune with the United Kingdom agenda.

Sandra Osborne: I rise to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) with some trepidation. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of such matters, whereas I am merely a new member of the delegation. However, I will attempt to do my best. I welcome this debate, which is an ideal opportunity to reflect on the history and ideals of the
	Council of Europe, as well as its relevance in the modern world. Today is obviously an opportunity to debate the Government’s priorities for the UK chairmanship, but we also need strongly to reaffirm our commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law at international level, as well as the level of the nation state.
	As we have heard, the UK was a founder member in 1949 and, two years later, was the first country to ratify the European convention on human rights, which is at the heart of the Council of Europe agenda. In the post-war era there was a common desire to build up international co-operation so that communal solutions could be found to global problems. Never again would the world erupt into terrible bloody wars. There would also be basic individual rights and freedoms, and the development of democratic Governments. As with the United Nations, that was the context that gave birth to the Council of Europe. We need only consider the wars that have, unfortunately continued despite all the efforts to avoid them, the ongoing threat of terrorism and the continuing struggle for human rights and democracy—as witnessed most recently in the Arab spring—to realise that there remains a fundamental need for a body such as the Council of Europe to ensure that individual countries not only sign up to promoting human rights for all their citizens, but live up to their responsibilities in implementing them.
	As I have said, I am a new member of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, having previously served on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in the last Parliament. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the delegation and our civil servants, both at Westminster and in Strasbourg, for the support that I have been given in finding my way around the practices and procedures of the Parliamentary Assembly. It is a very different place from this one, and it is taking me some time to adjust. I hope that I am making some progress in that regard. I have already paid tribute to the leader of the UK delegation, and I would also like to pay tribute to the leader of the Labour delegation, my noble Friend Lord Prescott, and to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who chairs the Migration Committee, of which I have become a member. He has been very helpful, and has encouraged me to take part and to take on some early responsibilities. I welcome the opportunity to do that.
	It is clear to me that the Committee of Ministers provides a necessary mechanism at governmental level to agree and implement policies, although, as other hon. Members have said, reform is much needed. I am therefore pleased that that is one of the Government’s priorities. I admit, however, that I initially wondered whether the Parliamentary Assembly was any more than just a talking shop. In these straitened times, is it worth using vital resources to fund such bodies? There are some who would question such expenditure, but my experience so far has shown me that they would be wrong. When I look at the work programme of the Parliamentary Assembly, I am amazed at the breadth and extent of the vital matters under discussion, and at the impressive reports that are produced, which I believe are akin to our own Select Committee reports.
	The capacity exists to make challenging recommendations to the Council of Ministers and to hold the Council of Europe to account, which is an achievement, given the
	number of member states involved. We should therefore be careful that any savings that can and should be made do not undermine the whole principle of the Council of Europe or the Parliamentary Assembly, or render them incapable of doing their job.
	For those who have the good fortune to live in a country such as the UK, it can be easy to take for granted the rights that we have. It has become increasingly obvious to me, through my previous membership of the OSCE delegation and now of the Council of Europe, that it is vital, at a profound yet simple level, to keep talking, even though that can be time consuming, expensive and, in the case of some of the eastern European countries, repetitive.

Keith Vaz: I am following my hon. Friend’s speech carefully, and I welcome all the work that she does in the Council of Europe. Does she not think that there is a case for doing more in this country to publicise its work? We have the chairmanship coming up soon, yet very few members of the public will know about it. Is there not an obligation to ensure that the work is related to the people of this country in some way?

Sandra Osborne: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to that subject later in my speech. If the truth be told, I confess that I was pretty ignorant myself before I became a member of the delegation. That is probably an indictment of me, but also of the level of discussion that we have on the subject in this Parliament. We should take the opportunity to hold more discussions such as the one we are having today.
	All the evidence suggests that mankind—I use that word advisedly—learns very little from experience, and very slowly, concerning the exercise of power and the protection of the weak, but at least there is hope when dialogue leads to international treaties. So, if we believe that human rights are at the centre of our foreign policy— sometimes I wonder, although I welcome the Minister’s statement to that effect—we should be prepared to support the European convention on human rights without equivocation.
	The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to the meeting earlier this week between the UK delegation and Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe. The secretary-general commented that the UK was well placed to use the chairmanship to take forward reform of the European Court of Human Rights, because we started it and we have the diplomatic capacity to gather support. In the six months available, I hope that that proves to be the case. I am aware that a great deal of groundwork has already taken place—although, as the Minister has said, securing consensus among 47 states is a tall order. It is right that that should be the UK’s main priority, however. Everyone agrees that reform is needed, not least because of the huge backlog in applications.
	As has already been said, there is also a tension in some people’s minds between the judgments of the Court and national sovereignty. That was illustrated in the UK with the judgment on prisoner voting rights. I was disappointed by the level of debate in the UK on
	that issue, as it undermined the purpose of the convention, which is to promote human rights. Whatever people’s views on whether prisoners should have the right to vote, the debate was characterised by inaccurate, populist and, in some cases, xenophobic nonsense. If there is a genuine problem—and I think we all agree that there is—with the Court intervening inappropriately in national affairs, let us deal with it in a measured way that promotes subsidiarity where appropriate, instead of bursting out in moral panic.
	It is not unknown for the UK to lecture other countries about human rights, and quite rightly so—in fact, I hope the Government will take the chance to raise human rights issues with President Santos of Colombia when he visits the UK later this month—but we should practise what we preach if we want to be seen as an example to other countries. I hope we do, and I hope we are.
	Although the reform of the European Court of Human Rights is the main priority, I would like to comment briefly on some of the other priorities that the UK Government have set for our chairmanship. Combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity across Europe is a very welcome objective, and I believe the work we have done in the UK stands us in good stead—particularly the measures in the Equality Act 2010 and the right to civil partnership, which were passed in the last Parliament. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government—believe me, I do not often compliment them—are currently consulting on taking this a step further with the introduction of gay marriage. I am pleased that we can give a lead to other member states on this, and I am glad the Government have made it a priority—not gay marriage, but tackling discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Michael Connarty: It has always struck me that in some other countries—this is certainly true where my son lives—people who are heterosexual can register not a civic partnership but the fact that they are de facto partners. That means that when one dies, the pension will transfer automatically to the other member of that de facto partnership. In this country, however, for a heterosexual couple who do not go through a formal legal marriage, either in a church or elsewhere, the pension dies with the partner. If we are talking about human rights, surely when people put themselves into a de facto partnership of that kind, they should have all the rights of those who go through a formal marriage.

Sandra Osborne: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but I would say that heterosexual people have the option to marry, which gay people have not had in the past. It is right that it should be afforded to them.

Michael Connarty: But they have a civic partnership?

Sandra Osborne: There is a civic partnership that was not previously available—

Michael Connarty: But heterosexuals cannot—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are not conducting a conversation; this is a debate.

Sandra Osborne: I apologise—

Dawn Primarolo: No, it is not the hon. Lady’s fault. The hon. Gentleman should know better. If he wants to intervene, he knows how to do so properly.

Sandra Osborne: He is just very enthusiastic, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The internet, as we have found, knows no national barriers, and that has positive and negative consequences. Freedom of expression is vital in the context of human rights, and I am pleased that the UK Government are taking that on board by looking at people’s human rights in respect of their use of the internet. I hope that any European internet governance strategy will take into account the protection of vulnerable people, especially children.
	On local and regional democracy, I am not particularly familiar with the Council of Europe’s programme, but as a former local councillor I have strong views about the role of local government in promoting democracy. I believe that we have many good examples here and a wealth of experience. However, local government has been somewhat undermined in recent years—by all parties—and should be held in higher regard in this country. The fact is that, by definition, local government is closest to the people—something that is extremely important throughout the length and breadth of Europe. That is relevant to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said about the importance of publicising the Council of Europe and its work. Word could be spread among communities through local government, explaining what the COE is all about.
	As I said earlier, I am a member of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population in the Parliamentary Assembly. I would have liked to see some migration issues on the list of priorities, especially economic, human rights and integration issues. I had understood that the protection of minorities was intended to be one of the United Kingdom’s priorities.
	I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those two points. Can he also tell me whether he, or any other Ministers, will be present at the Parliamentary Assembly to report to it during the UK chairmanship? I shall be interested to see how the chairmanship works out, and I wish Government and civil servants the very best in their endeavours.

Priti Patel: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, primarily because I have been calling for a debate on this subject for a good few weeks. I suspect that the Minister may have become sick of hearing from me. I thank right hon. and hon. Members who supported me last week in my pitch to the Backbench Business Committee. They clearly recognised the importance of holding such a topical debate at the time of our chairmanship. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) for his leadership and his insightful comments. As a new Member of Parliament, I know that he has a great deal of experience of these matters, and I think that all new Members have a lot to learn from him.
	I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, and for the written statement that he published yesterday. There is, of course, much to discuss when it comes to our chairmanship and its priorities, and this afternoon is the right time for that discussion.
	All Members who have spoken so far have touched on Britain’s strong historic links with the Council of Europe and the drafting of the original European convention on human rights. In view of those historic links, I think that Britain must now play a central role in reforming the COE to ensure that the sovereignty of nation states is respected and the British interest is put first. I say that partly in the context of this week’s debates on European affairs. On Monday we saw exactly what happens when power-hungry supranational institutions simply go too far: the public become somewhat disenfranchised, and the democratic deficit created becomes slightly harder to remedy. The public have a view on that. I think there is a genuine danger that if action is not taken during our chairmanship, the country could find itself sleepwalking down a path towards the stripping away of more of our powers and more important decisions will eventually be taken out of our hands.
	No doubt there is unity throughout the House on the need to safeguard rights to a fair trial, respect for family life, protection from slavery, freedom of thought and other great values of which this country and British democracy have been staunch defenders over the years. However, the European system of human rights that is reinforced by the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and their related institutions lacks accountability and democratic legitimacy.
	I believe that central to that problem is the way in which the European Court of Human Rights operates. Over the years, it has effectively become a final court of appeal for those who feel that there are human rights-related grounds that their national courts have wrongly dismissed. I think we all appreciate the importance of that. Recent statistics from the court reveal that in 83% of cases it finds that violation has taken place, contrary to decisions made nationally. The hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned the backlog of cases, and I think there is consensus on the fact that the numbers are alarming. I welcome my hon. Friend’s highly practical suggestion that people should be brought in to read through the paperwork and sort out the situation. While the figures for Britain are better than average, with the Court finding that a violation has taken place in 61% of cases, it is astonishing that in so many cases the Court and its judges rule against judgments made by very able, experienced and qualified judges in the British courts. Moreover, given that section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 explicitly binds our courts into the European human rights system so they already give effect to the convention in European case law, it is even more unreasonable for Europe to dismiss so many of the decisions made by our courts.
	Politicians will always have their differences with the judiciary and the decisions made by judges, but many of the decisions made in Strasbourg are fundamentally contrary to British values and the British interest. That leads me to question the accountability and legitimacy of the Court.
	This situation is made even more challenging to our democracy because no real mechanisms are in place for Parliament to reverse these European Court judgments. Such mechanisms are in place for decisions by domestic courts, however. Earlier this year when the English courts highlighted an anomaly in laws relating to police bail arrangements, Parliament was able to initiate and pass emergency legislation: the Police (Detention and
	Bail) Act 2011. Just as courts act independently to hold the legislature and the Executive to account, in this case Parliament and the Government were able to hold the judiciary to account. That does not seem to be possible for decisions made in the European Court, however. As has been mentioned, last February the House passed a motion sending a clear message to Europe that it did not believe it was right of the European Court of Human Rights to demand that we scrap our laws and give convicted prisoners the right to vote, yet Europe is still insisting that the judgments of the European Court takes precedence over the laws passed and motions agreed by this Parliament, and is still saying that we must grant prisoners the right to vote.

Michael Connarty: I have been listening to the hon. Lady expand on her point. I think she has got the matter wrong. When the European Court of Human Rights makes a judgment, it passes it back to the country of origin, which must then make proposals to try to fit in with that judgment. I understand that there is no intention on the part of the Government—supported by the Opposition, I hope—to give up their right in this matter entirely. They are being asked to define in which circumstances it is appropriate for someone to be not only incarcerated but deprived of their right to vote.

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
	In February we debated the sovereignty and decision making of this House in relation to a particular judgment. By refusing to accept the sovereignty of our Parliament and the democratic decision making of this House, Europe is demonstrating a lack of legitimacy and democratic accountability, which I find astonishing given that the Council of Europe was established precisely to promote democracy. Therefore, in my view, attacking our Parliament and seeking to undermine our democracy is simply counter-productive.
	The prisoner votes issue is just one well-known example of the problem—and it is still ongoing. There are other similar Strasbourg decisions, however, such as in the Sufi and Elmi case, where Britain was prevented on human rights grounds from deporting two individuals back to Somalia, despite their being responsible for a very serious spate of crimes, including threats to kill, robbery and dealing in class A drugs. We should bear in mind that such decisions can end up setting a legal precedent, so they can impact on subsequent deportation cases. In the Sufi and Elmi case, human rights were used as an excuse to allow people to remain in Britain.

David Davies: My hon. Friend is making a number of excellent points. Does she agree that the human rights of violent criminals and terrorists are too often being put ahead of the human rights of law-abiding British subjects? She is right to draw attention to that.

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so clearly and succinctly. Our chairmanship of the Council of Europe is coming up and this is a big opportunity for us to address, if nothing else, the perception issues and the fact that we need to remain vigilant on these matters to ensure that powers and decision making stay in this country.
	In pulling my remarks together, I wish to emphasise to the Minister and the Government that there are issues to be addressed. Britain is signed up to a range of international agreements on human rights-related matters, which are all welcome and important. However, decisions on human rights laws must be brought back home, because having British courts interpreting British laws is a better and more democratic position than having European judges and their officials ignoring our national interest. It is unhelpful and counter-productive for them to be foisting their particular laws on us.
	It is time to draw a line in the sand on many of these matters, and to free up our courts, our public bodies and, in particular, Parliament from some of the excessive intrusion and integration on human rights matters that we have seen. I hope that, through the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, the Government will take this opportunity to address these matters, in addition to the areas of priority that the Minister outlined.

Alan Meale: I said that I was not going to be able to speak in the debate, but I managed to get somebody else to chair a meeting in this building in time to come back to the Chamber.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her persistence and endeavour in securing this debate, although I suspect our agreement on and understanding of each other’s politics ceases there. She has not grasped at all what the Council of Europe is about, which is human rights, the rule of law and democracy. They are all intertwined; they are not simple little solutions set aside from each other and never the twain shall meet. They are interlinked so that we can get policies that cross national boundaries.
	The hon. Lady cites one or two examples that everybody in this Chamber, including the Minister and Labour Members, agree on, but they are minor cases where things have to be cleared up. That is all part of the agenda for change, which the Council of Ministers and the Council of Europe are undertaking. Let us deal with the big issues, one of which is capital punishment. Countries are not allowed to become members of the Council of Europe if they carry out capital punishment. We must remember that there are 800 million people in these 47 countries in greater Europe, and we cannot singly deal with one or two issues such as the ones she raised.

Brian Binley: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that many of the decisions by the European Court of Human Rights that gain the headlines in our newspapers actually diminish the role of justice and therefore are very important?

Alan Meale: The hon. Gentleman is right. I apologise if I have led him up the path of thinking that these minor matters in relation to the very big issues that the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights deal with are in some way not important. They are all very important, and they are very important to the people involved. As the Minister rightly pointed out, Members on both sides of the House are seriously of a mind for change and reform as far as the Court is concerned, because of the huge catalogue of outstanding cases, many of which could and should be dealt with in
	the courts of the individual countries. We should accept responsibility for our failure to act to make the courts deal with them. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) said, the problem of the courts and the outstanding cases in the European Court is caused by failures in individual nations and their court systems.
	I said in an intervention that we have a very democratic system, which could be reformed in some way, for choosing judges. The three candidates that are submitted by all member countries have to be fully experienced in such matters before their names are even put forward and there has to be a gender balance. Those people are then examined by a committee in full before recommendations are made to the Assembly, which then decides. I have been there on a number of occasions over the years, as have other hon. Members who are present today, when time and again we have sent back the names of candidates and said, “They are not qualified,” “They do not come up to the standard,” or, in a number of cases, “No gender choice whatever has been given.” A few years ago, some countries refused to submit the name of a female candidate. The system is well-tested and I do not think that talking about “sleepwalking” away from accountability is the best way forward.
	The Minister gave us the best way forward, which has been accepted by all parties. We need reform. We have to wake up the courts and the Governments of member countries and say, “You have to take responsibility for and deal with these issues; the European Court is for bigger things.” The example I gave of where such instances might apply involved a failure by two members of the Council of Europe area and, indeed, Britain—so three countries in all—in respect of seized assets in the northern area of Cyprus. An individual citizen went through all the courses for legal redress in their own country, Cyprus, and then went to the guarantor powers of Greece and the United Kingdom, but the case failed and there was no other domestic court for that case to go to. Members might ask, “What does a person’s ownership of their home have to do with the European Court of Human Rights?” Well, it has a lot to do with it if someone’s country has been invaded, they have been marshalled out of their home and local area into another country, and the return of the assets in the house, and the house itself, has been refused.
	The Loizidou case went to the Court, which took a number of years to deal with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) rightly pointed out, it was then sent back to Turkey and the regime in the northern area of Cyprus, which were told, “You must deal with this matter. What you have done is illegal—you have illegally invaded, you have illegally occupied and you have illegally kept rightful owners away from their homes.” The judgment that came down in the end was that reparation to the tune of nearly £1 million in costs and compensation should be paid to the family not for the home they had lost but for the loss of use of their home over that 30-odd year period. That case could not have been dealt with in any other court.

David Burrowes: The hon. Gentleman makes an important case regarding the human rights of the people of Cyprus. Is it not the case that this issue of human rights goes further and affects
	not just loss of property but loss of people? There is also an issue of missing relatives and people who still do not know where their loved ones have gone since the conflicts. They have called on Turkey to release basic information giving them a right to know where their relatives are. Does he agree that there has been a breach of those fundamental rights which must be answered and that we could take the opportunity, as chair of the Council of Europe, to make that case?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are not discussing the issue of Turkey per se and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bring the debate back to the question of the chairmanship of the Council of Europe and its priorities.

Alan Meale: Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. To give a very short reply to the question, let me just point out to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) that there has been involvement in that particular case and many other cases of breaches of human rights by the British Government as a guarantor power. Those issues will be taken up yet again in the course of the six-month chairmanship. Indeed, quite recently the European Minister met the Commissioner for Human Rights, who is an employee elected by the Council of Europe members in its Assembly. As my colleague the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) alluded to, 1,619 Greek Cypriots and 684 Turkish Cypriots remain missing from those periods. I know there will be contact on that subject during our chairmanship.
	The Minister outlined the primary policies that we shall take up during our chairmanship. One key area is local and regional government. Next week or the week after, the Minister will be present at talks in Kiev. I hope he will give a guarantee in his summing-up that he will fall behind all the magnificent work on local government reform by Kivinemi, the Minister from Finland, which was picked up and improved upon by Chavez, the Spanish Minister. That is very important.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham on her persistence in obtaining the debate, but I ask her to think about some of the Council of Europe’s other roles that will be debated during our chairmanship. We send people on peace missions or monitoring missions. Two or three Members who are currently in the Chamber take part in those missions and put themselves at risk. At this minute there are people on monitoring missions in some outlying areas of greater Europe, where they have to receive military protection in order to fulfil their role. In the forthcoming weeks and months, Members from both sides of the Chamber will be undertaking such missions, and they risk their lives in doing so. In the Georgian conflict, the Chechnyan conflict, the Bosnian conflict and the Kosovan-Serbia conflict, Members of the House, as members of the Council of Europe, went in as peace monitors and election monitors, trying to achieve a democratic purpose. The Council is not just a small organisation in that respect.
	I shall refer briefly to the work of the eight committees of the Council of Europe. Britain’s membership of the Assembly, from both sides of this Chamber, is a worthwhile and leading part of the work of the Council of Europe. We have a number of vice-chairmen. We have the chairmen of the monitoring committee, the health committee and
	the environment committee; the list goes on and on. I mentioned the committee that examines and gives initial interviews to those who wish to become judges of the European Court of Human Rights. We hold the chairmanship and leading positions on that committee. I pay tribute to a previous Conservative Member of this place: John Greenway was the chair of the Council’s committee on rules of procedure, and did a magnificent job in the years that he held that position.
	I also pay tribute to the British ambassador in Strasbourg. I have seen many ambassadors in different countries who treat it as a fine profession and a life indeed, but this woman works night and day. If committees meet early in the morning, she is there; she is there throughout the day and into the late evenings, attending meetings and so on. I pay tribute to her and her staff, as I do to Secretary-General Jagland. He is comparatively new to his role, but I am pleased that I and others on both sides of this Chamber voted for him, because he has done a magnificent job and brought a stature to the Council of Europe and its work, with his background as Speaker and Prime Minister of his own country’s Government. His sense of purpose in the reform process has been very good indeed.
	Last but not least, I pay tribute to the staff of this place. We have a small number of staff who run the Overseas Office. They fix up all the travel arrangements and arrange the accommodation, which I acknowledge is not salubrious—I wish it was—but for which they get the best value they can. They have to make those arrangements for 30-odd Members of Parliament, including arrangements to enable them to participate in all the committees that emanate from the work of the Council of Europe.

Roger Gale: I wish to touch briefly on three issues. The first relates to the European convention on human rights, which is the first priority listed on the briefing paper issued by the Government on the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe. Article 5 of the convention sets out the right to freedom. Article 6 sets out the right to a fair trial. A constituent of mine has been held in prison in Malta for more than two years. Another constituent has just faced a highly questionable trial in Lille in France, and he was held for two years before the trial without any right to freedom. Malta and France are both signatories to the convention on human rights.
	When I started to look into the background on this, I wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to request a breakdown of the number of UK citizens who have been held for more than 10 months without trial in countries that are signatories to the convention on human rights and members of the Council of Europe. Initially, those at the FCO said that they did not have a breakdown for all 47 countries and that it would be unreasonable to expect them to do all that work because it would be very expensive. However, not wishing to be unhelpful, they asked me to name the countries I was interested in. I named four: Greece, Spain, France and Malta—the latter two for obvious reasons. It was a freedom of information request and they complied with it.
	Malta is holding five UK citizens who have been in prison for more than 10 months without trial, and Malta is a signatory to the convention on human rights. France is holding 12 UK citizens who have been in prison for more than 10 months without trial, and France is a signatory to the convention on human rights. Indeed, my constituent was held in France for more than two years. Spain is holding 43 UK citizens who have been in prison for more than 10 months without trial, and Spain is a signatory to the convention on human rights. Article 5, which sets out the right to freedom, is being breached by these countries. The FCO said that it could not specify the number of UK citizens being held in Greece because that number was so small that doing so could identify the person concerned. I did not quite understand that, but the fact of the matter is that Greece is also clearly in breach of article 5.
	In the case of the constituent who was tried in Lille last week, I maintain that article 6 has been breached because I do not believe that he has had a fair trial. In fact, I am afraid that his situation was probably worsened by the intervention of a British Member of Parliament seeking to bring about the trial. The man has been sentenced to five years in prison, fined €10,000 and asked to repay something akin to the debt of Greece—€5 million. He does not have that because he has lost his home and his family; he has lost the lot.
	During the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe, I want the Government to hold to the fire the feet of each and every country that is a member of the Council and is holding UK citizens, or any other citizens for that matter, for long periods of time without trial. It is a clear breach of the convention. Many of those countries, France in particular, are preaching to the United Kingdom and trying to tell us that we must give prisoners voting rights. We had that debate in this Chamber and reached a sovereign decision as a sovereign Parliament. I explained that in person to the Human Rights Commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg, the last time we were in Strasbourg. I said, “Tom, you must understand that this is a sovereign Parliament. This is not a Government decision, but a decision taken in the House of Commons by elected Members. We have decided that we do not believe that we have a duty to give convicted prisoners voting rights.” While that is an issue, we are told that other countries can hold citizens without trial for very long periods in breach of the convention.
	I would like my right hon. Friend to take to the chairmanship and to Ministers this clear issue and say that we will not budge one inch until every country holding any citizen for an indeterminate period without trial has complied properly with the convention.

Michael Connarty: I just want to get the hon. Member to clarify and put on the record the fact that all of these countries have not only signed, but ratified and implemented the convention, because there are many countries who sign conventions, never ratify them and never, therefore, implement them.

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. The implication is that because we have signed the convention, we are implementing it. My understanding is that Malta, Spain and France have implemented it, but I am open to challenge on Greece—
	I ought to know but do not. France certainly makes a big issue of the situation and is very communautaire, just as long as it wants to be, but on this issue it is in clear breach and needs to be told that it is.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend regret as I do the fact that, notwithstanding the Forfeiture Act 1870, which established the will of this House in respect of prisoner votes, and the emphatic vote in February, which made clear to Ministers and to the Court itself the settled view of the House, there has been only a suspension of the Court’s judgment on the UK situation with respect to Greens and M.T., as a result of an Italian case, and that the Court has not accepted the will of this House to decide that we are correct and will not give the franchise to convicted felons?

Roger Gale: I have already made my view abundantly plain: I regret the situation very much indeed. If there is any case to be made, it can only be this: a person on remand might be considered to have the right to vote, because they have not been convicted. I cannot have my cake and eat it, because, if I want people to have a fair trial and to be tried in a timely fashion, I have to concede that if people have not been convicted, they should arguably have the right to vote—but that is all.
	Internet governance and freedom of expression on the internet, is one of the Government’s priorities during our chairmanship, but I urge caution upon my right hon. Friend the Minister. The culture committee, on which I sit as an alternate, and the sub-committee that has been dealing with the issue, on which I sit as a full member, have recently been considering a report prepared by another delegate to the Council of Europe. Fortunately, members of the United Kingdom delegation stood shoulder to shoulder and had the report withdrawn.
	The report has now been rewritten and will be brought back before the committee in Paris on 6 December, when I suspect a reasonable compromise will be reached and it will then be debated. When it is debated and passed, it will be passed to Ministers for consideration, but in that report there is a great deal of motherhood and apple pie. The Government’s position paper says that they stand by the right to freedom of expression on the internet, and that is all nice and fine, but we are talking about what is known as public control, which basically means state control—and means something slightly different in French.
	I do not want to see state control of the internet, and we all know what we mean when we say freedom of expression on the internet, but we have to consider the fact that, although social networking and all those things were held up as the great saviour, the prop that held up the Arab spring and made things happen, which was wonderful, precisely the same social networking was used in London in August to orchestrate criminal riots.
	So, just before we go too far down that road, I urge my right hon. Friend to ask his colleagues on the Committee of Ministers to take a long, hard, proper look at the issue, and to ensure that we understand exactly what we are saying when we plead freedom of expression on the internet. One man’s freedom of expression may be the ball and chain around another man’s leg.
	Finally, I shall touch again on the issue that I raised earlier, transfrontier broadcasting, because it is serious. Twenty-five years ago the Council of Europe passed a transfrontier broadcasting convention. I know, because I am a re-tread, and 25 years ago—God help me—I was on the Council of Europe and I participated in the debate at the time. The reason we worked so hard on the issue was that we wanted to make sure that Europe did not do something very silly by insisting that every television station throughout Europe had a half-hour quota of clog-dancing in Lederhosen or whatever, but instead had something sensible. We knew what we wanted. We wanted reasonable control of matters such as broadcast pornography, taste, decency and so on. We created something that was worth while.
	Tim Renton, who was then a Home Office Minister with responsibility for broadcasting—it used to be a Home Office responsibility—turned that convention into the European Union directive, so it was a worthwhile exercise. We have now reached the point where the convention is out of date, and because of the advance of technology it needs to be streamlined. The Council of Europe is getting to grips with it, and rightly doing what it was trying to do before—to get it right. Suddenly, along comes a European Union commissioner who says that it is a European Union competence and that the Council may not discuss it.
	As things stand, the Council of Europe has stopped its work on the project. That is outrageous because, as has been said, the European Union represents only a proportion of the countries that are member states of the Council of Europe. I believe that the greater should embrace the lesser, not the other way round, and that the matter is a Council of Europe responsibility. I urge my right hon. Friend to take that message on board very clearly indeed. It is an important issue.

Michael Connarty: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale). Having been in the Council of Europe, and in this House for so long, and having watched his endeavours in the Council of Europe at the moment, it is amazing that he is still enthusiastic about searching out the right wording and practice in the things he is involved in. I am sure that he was the same 25 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) referred to me as enthusiastic, but I have been here for a mere 19 years. I hope that when I have been here for as long as the hon. Gentleman I am still as enthusiastic for the fight.
	The fight is for the correct implementation of the principles behind the Council of Europe. I may not always take the example of the hon. Member for North Thanet on how he approaches things, and hopefully we will be at the meeting seeking the compromise that I suggested might be found between him and the author of the original report, which was deeply flawed in the way it was expressed. I hope that we will work together across the party divide on these matters.
	It is a pity the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has gone. I am not sure whether she is a member of the delegation, but certainly some members on the Government side do not take up their place, and she might be able to learn quite a lot by volunteering to take one of the
	places that are not being actively filled at the moment. I am sure she would find it enlightening and educational, as we all do. The delegation, although we may come from different angles, is genuinely still the bedrock of debates in the Council of Europe. Delegates are often there at the beginning; they are there at the end of the day, which might be 8 o’clock at night; and they are often there on Friday when most people have decided to go home. We want to take part in debates and make our views known.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I were both there on the Friday of the last part-session, disagreeing with each other. I thought he would like to know that I am here, and that I do not entirely agree with him today.

Michael Connarty: We came in together, and hopefully they will carry us out together. I recall that we also came to the House in the same year.
	It is absolutely incredible that a court as important as the Court of Human Rights is clogged up by a type of bureaucracy that could not be imagined in the most disorganised country in the world. The simplest cases that will clearly never be correctly allocated to the Court have to be judged by a full bench of judges before they can say, “No, we can’t deal with this.” There is no sifting process and no filter process. No Committee in this House would run if every Member had to gather every day, look at every paper proposed, and come before the Committee to decide whether it could even discuss it. That is what the Court is about at the moment. Anything we can do under our chairmanship to bring in a filtering system whereby one judge or some other method is used to say, “This is still correct to stay on the list and others must be sent back to the courts of the national jurisdictions or rejected”, is long overdue.
	I will talk later about the Human Rights Act 1998 in the context of individual countries. It is a myth that the Court can make a country implement its judgment just by lifting the judgment made in the Court and transposing it into the Acts of Parliament of this country. It is not the European Union, after all. I see that the Minister for Europe is here, and he recognises that that can happen with European Union regulations and all the other things that come in, and we have to just get on with it because we have signed away some of those rights—but not at Council of Europe level. It has to come back and be looked at by this sovereign Parliament, which then makes a judgment on what amendments to make that would implement it. I hope that we never move away from that.
	There is lots of talk saying that our Human Rights Act is somehow a transcription of the convention on human rights and the judgments of the courts. I hope that it is, in fact, an attempt by this sovereign Parliament to implement the human rights that we all hold so dear for our country and for every other country. If it is not correct and needs to be amended in some way, that is our right as a sovereign Parliament, but we must not get into the situation where we can overturn the human rights that are available to people in Council of Europe countries just because we believe that it will satisfy the feelings of our constituents.
	I held a very excellent debate about human rights and family rights. On family rights, yes, there is no doubt that people are angry because that is used as a plea for someone not to be sent back to some other country. But when we come down to the fundamentals and someone is asked, “Do you think that family rights are due to all of us?”, most people would say yes. We then have to decide why it is not applicable to someone who may come from another country. Sometimes, if we throw out that basic judgment that family rights are available to all of us, and must therefore be available to anyone under our jurisdiction, we destroy something very important in what we have fought for, for political gain and for a feeling of anger rather than for a judgment of what is correct.

Bob Stewart: I have a question because I am slightly ignorant on the procedures. If a judgment came back to this House and this House decided that it would not accept it, where do we stand then?

Michael Connarty: That is a very important question. If the Government should bring back a proposal on, for example, whether prisoners in custody should have voting rights, and we decided that we did not wish to accept it, we could reject it. They would have to come back again to try to put another proposal, and I presume negotiations would go on between the Committee of Ministers, particularly with our chairmanship in the next six months, to find something that would be suitable, and that would be correct. However, I believe—this is my own judgment—that if we got to the point where we said, “No, we refuse to implement this”, then there must be some question about whether we want to remain in the Council of Europe at all.

Brian Binley: The hon. Gentleman is a very dedicated member of the Parliamentary Assembly, and it is a pleasure to work with him. Does he recognise that at the end of the day the judgment goes to the Council of Ministers, and that equally at the end of the day they have no powers of enforcement? I relate that to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale): nothing can be done, and therein lies one of the problems.

Michael Connarty: I think that is correct in what I have seen of the Council of Europe. It can make judgments, it can put down statements, people can support those statements, and they can be transmitted through the Committee of Ministers to the representatives of all the countries who send a representative to that Committee. One of the reasons I am quite a strong supporter of the European Union is that it can bring in directives, and has done so, as I shall mention later, in areas which are close to my heart and to the logic of why I am here as a representative of the people of my constituency. It has an enforceable power, mainly tied up with the economic power that lies in the EU rather than just the Court of Justice. But yes, I think that there is a need for a much more diligent pursuit of the matters raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet.
	The third part of what I say will be on the way in which the Council of Europe operates. The debate on the scope and effect of proposals, papers or conventions has to be had vigorously in the committees. That was done by the hon. Member for North Thanet, and I will
	give examples of where, even in the year that I have been there, I have taken that route and had changes made. Hopefully I will bring about other changes, because that is what we are there to do: we are not there just to go to the plenaries and get our card ticked for being present; we are, I hope, there to go to the committees, participate in the debates and form and reform the papers, the proposals and the conventions that eventually come out of the Council of Europe. If we do that, it is our duty to come here and argue for them to be implemented in our country in the fullest way declared in those conventions. If we cannot do that, I question whether we are fully participating in the process.
	I thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), because he organises the Labour side of the delegation. He was the person who suggested that, having been Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and been a member for the past 13 years, I might see going to the Council of Europe as a natural progression, because I could see more of the debates at the fundamental level, which I did not see in the minutiae of the implementation of European directives. I thank him for inviting me to attend.
	It was suggested that I should go into the committee on culture, science and education. I will speak a little about the processes that I found there, because it is important to put on the record, for those who do not know what this is all about and who read the debates, what happens there. When I went along, one of the large papers that was debated was on “the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue.” When I read it, I realised, as a humanist, that the Council of Europe’s fundamental principle of the right to belief as well as faith, was missing from the paper. When the committee invited people from all the main religions to discuss the paper, it also invited the secretary of the European Federation of Humanists to present a paper and to be heard in Paris. We then tabled amendments, which were debated and added to the paper. The paper was eventually discussed again in the committee, of which the hon. Member for North Thanet is also a member, and went to the full plenary, where it was passed by a 95% vote of the Parliamentary Assembly.
	There are some things in that paper that I believe are priorities for our sixth-month presidency and that will be very helpful in a world where we know there is still anti-Semitism, sectarianism and in many countries an anti-Christian movement that threatens people’s rights, but also persecution and a denial of the rights of people who are not affiliated to religious organisations. I found those issues fundamental to why I am here, what I believe in and what I believe are the rights of the people whom I represent, and there they were being discussed in that committee. Hopefully, my participation in that debate changed the document.
	There was opposition from one or two fundamentalist born again Christians who tried to take all the references to humanism out of the paper. I am glad to say that it was defended by people of all faiths in the committee and in the Assembly, because it is not about being against something, but about including people and diversity in the real sense, not just in a small way. That was an important lesson for me that when I was placed on a committee, if I took it seriously, I could do something; I would not necessarily have carried the day, but I could at least express those views.
	The other committee that I sit on is the social, health and family affairs committee. The discussions of that committee chimed very much with the interests that I have always thought that we are there to pursue, such as the discussions about human trafficking. Some hon. Members may know that I am now vice-chair of the all-party human trafficking group in this House. I have pressed—even harried—the Government to sign up to the European directives on human trafficking and the new, extended European directive against the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. I found that there was very much a campaign running on that in the Council of Europe—the “One in Five” campaign. Again, I am grateful to the leader of the delegation, who nominated me to be the UK representative on that organisation. It is in fact a network of contact parliamentarians to stop sexual violence against children.
	When we talk about these things, particularly at a European level about cross-border action, some people think it is not to do with them, but I have to say that in my own constituency, in the town of Grangemouth, an industrial town, there have been two unbelievably horrendous cases—many cases, but two horrendous cases of sexual abuse of female children aged 13 and 14 months by two different people, put on the internet and spread around the massive paedophile rings throughout the world. It is in every street and every town. In fact the deputy commissioner for children in England is going to have a two-year investigation running into sexual abuse of children. On one day, she took a snapshot throughout England of local authorities and care organisations; in one day, on the same day in England, 1,000 cases of sexual abuse of children were reported in England—in one day at that snapshot. That is how frightening this is.
	When we had our first meeting we were addressed by Mr John Carr, who is from the UK and is the expert adviser to the International Telecommunications Union on online protection of children. The figures he gave were horrendous: there are 1 million images on paedophile internet sites at any time in the world; there are 15 million transactions a year in the country. The one thing that is a problem is that a site can be shut down or blocked in this country within 24 hours, but there are sites running in Russia and in the USA that were reported and identified over a year ago but are still running, in Russia because of gangsterism and it is hidden and hard to get at, and in the USA because it is protected by state laws and local laws. The providers of these things can still keep running a year after they are found to be trading. It is a massive, criminal, monetary-driven enterprise—paedophile activity and the abuse of children. That was a salutary lesson for me that there was something going on there that wanted to join all 47 countries—and wider than that, but all 47 countries as a start—in a campaign against one of the most heinous crimes and most heinous possible abuses of human rights and the rights of the child.
	As an adjunct, we debated in the social, health and family affairs committee—I was asked to speak, and I think the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) spoke in the same debate—the rights of undocumented migrant children. I think the most succinct statement of what the Council of Europe is about is the amendment from that committee that was spoken to by Madam Strik from the Netherlands. It said that a child
	is first and always a child, and then after may be a migrant. If that is what the Council of Europe is about, that is so powerful for the people we represent, because they want that to be a right for everyone in all their towns and all their communities, and the Council of Europe allows us to do that.
	We have also been addressed by the UN special rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Najat Maalla M’jid, a woman who does this work throughout the world. It was in fact connecting the Council of Europe countries to what is happening in a much wider portfolio.
	In this process of holding the presidency or the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers, I have an extra priority. It is embarrassing, and it relates to the question that I asked the hon. Member for North Thanet about having ratified a convention. The United Kingdom signed up to the convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, which was laid on 25 October 2007—almost exactly four years ago—on 5 May 2008. We have yet to ratify it, and if we do not ratify it, it is not brought into force. Let us look at the countries that have. Spain, which was referred to earlier, signed it in 2009 and ratified it in December 2010, and has put it into force. It is no use signing something that you do not put into force. I have been trying to get in to ask the Prime Minister for a number of weeks now, but have not been called, when we are going to ratify it. In our chairmanship six months, that is the time we should do this. We should ratify that convention.
	It is amazing how many people have actually been involved, and I pay compliment to a lady who I am told is called Martine McCutcheon, who starred in “Love Actually”—I think she played the Prime Minister’s girlfriend, if I recall correctly. She presented, with people from the UK, a petition, gathered with the help of the Body Shop, of 735,889 signatures, exactly at the time it was presented, calling for the UK to ratify that convention. That was 12 May 2011. The message does not seem to have got through to our Prime Minister and Government yet, but the people of this country want us to do that.
	I pay a compliment to them and to the hon. Member, who is a Member of the Government party, who is the chair of the UK Parliament’s all-party human trafficking group, and to Anthony Steen, a former Member of this House who set up an institute, the Human Trafficking Foundation. He is being supported to get campaigning organisations in all of the EU countries, but we still have a long way to go, and I hope it will be led by our chairmanship.
	I have one other small point, but it is an important point. The committee on culture, science and education had a proposal before it for a recommendation towards a European framework convention on youth rights. Disappointingly, the response of the permanent member representing the UK, who will become the chair of the committee of Ministers, was that they did not really think we needed youth rights. Unfortunately, it is a fact that now, in most of the countries of Europe, there is a long period between the time when you are a child and the time you are put out to work. Sometimes people study; sometimes they try to make a life for themselves; and sometimes they go into work. In that period, a lot
	of young people fall between the two stools. They are not treated as children and they are not adults. They are not people who are making the rules; they are the people who are having to suffer the badly made rules.
	Why I want to raise this is that it gives us an example of what we can do in the Council of Europe. I was on that committee and was involved in the draft. I took the draft away with me and I took it to the West Lothian youth forum, which is a forum set up by the local authority. I gave them copies and asked them to go away and use the youth forum to discuss this matter. What did they think of it? What did they think should be done with it? |What ideas were missing from it? The forum came back with three very simple amendments. One was on housing rights and the right to housing. The forum members pointed out that you can get housing—you can get housing in the worst dumps and slums of the cities—if you are a young person, because you are basically an insecure tenant and you have difficulties. They wanted rights to housing that is actually of a standard that is acceptable at a European level.
	The second one was on employment. They wanted in employment the right to training with in-work accreditation, because they knew so many young people who had got jobs and were used, basically. They were told they were getting an apprenticeship, spent two years as a grease monkey, and then when they asked to go to college to get certification, they were sacked and some other young person got taken on to go through the same process again and again.
	Those are two very important matters. The third one I think is very important as well, particularly since we allow the UK Youth Parliament to meet here in this House, in this Chamber. They said they want these matters, if we ever have a convention, to be monitored by the Youth Parliament or their equivalent in Europe, so that they can have a say on whether the Governments who sign up to these things are doing anything about it.

Brian Binley: I am again most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous with his time. Does he think there ought to be a balancing factor to rights? I am not denying the importance of rights, but I wonder whether we ought to give equal importance to the responsibilities of the individual. Perhaps he has an opportunity to make that point and to ask the Minister whether he might consider it as well.

Michael Connarty: I think that we have quite a developed idea among those who take it seriously that with rights come responsibilities. I explain to everyone who comes around Parliament that it is a nice building, fine, but buildings are buildings; Parliament is about what goes on in here—the concept of democracy, the demos, the people who had the right in Athens and the responsibility to run the country. They had the power but also the responsibility. That, basically, is how society should be run. We get rights, but we have responsibilities at the same time. I think that our Government in the past tried to echo that again and again. I think that there are questions about whether people think that they have only rights. In Scotland at the moment, everyone thinks that everything is free: they do not pay council tax increases, they do not pay for their education, they do not pay for their prescriptions—it is all free. I am afraid that that is not a world in which people can live for very
	long, because they soon become bankrupted financially but also bankrupted in terms of principle. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right: there needs to be a balance.
	Those young people were amazing. They took it seriously. A Member of Parliament said, “Here is a convention or a document that will affect your lives if it is ever passed. What do you think?” They went off and treated it seriously. I know that one of the people who helped to draft it, a young David Begg, sits in the Scottish Youth Parliament, and some of them come down here and participate in the UK Youth Parliament. That is giving them rights and responsibilities in the right way, and I hope that we will take that seriously and perhaps change our position and encourage the development of something that will speak to the youth and that has to contain responsibilities. However, the debate in the culture, science and education committee was the opposite: people said, “We don’t want to talk about responsibilities because we want to talk about young people having rights without saying they have to pay for them.” I do not necessarily agree with the balance, but that was how it was drafted.
	I will finish with one last reference to a document, Madam Deputy Speaker, because a lot of the debate going on is as though the Council of Europe is out there, the Court of Human Rights is out there, and they come and fly in and drop things on top of us that we have to implement. There is a paper from 6 June Parliamentary Assembly that I hope that every Member of the House will read. Perhaps members of the public would like to read it. It is called “National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe”. It states:
	“The report examines ways to better exploit parliaments’ potential in this respect and proposes basic principles to be respected by the parliaments of the Council of Europe member states.”
	It then lists a lot of very, very sensible suggestions for how Parliaments might do this. I think that is what it is about. It is not about saying, “Europe will make the decision for you. The Council of Europe will make the decision for you. You just have to implement it.” It is about thinking about how we, as parliamentarians in our Parliaments, can take those guarantees correctly.
	In my first year as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I realised that it was the one place where I could find the things that brought me into Parliament, the things that brought me into public life as a community activist, from where I went on to be a councillor and to give up so much of my life and time to this process of democratic representation. It is about human rights. The Council of Europe sets a benchmark against which it says to all the countries in the Council of Europe area, “You will be judged by the Council of Europe.” Enforceability is very important, and I would like to see more of it, but it says, “You will be judged by it. You will be held up to scrutiny by it. The more important thing is that you will have to ask yourselves, in your Parliament, how do you measure up to these human rights that should be available to everyone?” When I hear debates in here with people throwing out phrases that clearly say, “I want this human right, but that person from that country should not have it because we do not want them to have it. Send them back to their country, but they might be tortured. Send them back to their country, but they might face capital punishment,” I am ashamed, because that should not be talked about in this mother of Parliaments. Human rights are
	fundamental and the Council of Europe is their guardian. I am very pleased to be there, and I am sure that our time as the chair, with the leadership of the Minister and the Labour Benches, will be a good six months.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I would like to draw it to Members’ attention that this debate is due to finish at 6 o’clock. We will need to leave some time at the end—not too much—to hear back from the Minister, who has been given a long list of questions already. There are 10 more Members wishing to contribute. I ask them to keep their eye on the clock when making their contributions. If it looks as if everybody will not get in, I shall consider setting a time limit on speeches to try and help Members. However, I am sure that you will all want to help each other to make your points in this consensual debate.

Martin Horwood: This has been quite a consensual debate. It has not been as noisy and pacey as the debate about Europe that we had on Monday, but there has been a great deal of quality and quite a lot of unity, not only on the importance of the Council of Europe, but on the need to reform some of its institutions, such as the European Court. I welcome the Minister’s remarks and those of the Labour representative, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), although I think she might have made a slight slip of the tongue when she suggested that the landmass covered by the Council of Europe stretched from Vladivostok to Reykjavik. The term “landmass” might come as something of a surprise to the Icelanders.
	I pay tribute to all the members of the British delegation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) will be sorry that he is unable to contribute to today’s debate as he is feeling rather unwell. He is a committed member of the delegation, and I am sure that hon. Members will regret not hearing one of his robust contributions. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). He burnished his European credentials earlier this week, but he has received so many accolades today as the leader of the British delegation that that fact is worth mentioning too.
	It is an enormous honour for Britain to take on the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. As the Minister highlighted, Britain was involved right at the beginning in establishing the institution, which was forged from the embers of wartime Europe and has promoted human rights, freedom and democracy, the rule of law and cultural co-operation ever since. It is sad that we are now so complacent that in some circles the phrase “human rights” has become something of a dirty word. Indeed, on occasion even the rule of law and the right of judges to interpret human rights have been questioned.
	The Council of Europe shows that this is an important area that needs to be defended. Obviously the Council of Europe has a much lighter touch than the European Union and its institutions, but that gives it a much wider and more comprehensive remit. It has not just touched on human rights: we also have conventions on
	cyber-crime, pharmaceuticals, the prevention of terrorism and the prevention of torture, and—as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) pointed out—on trafficking human beings and on racism and intolerance, including intolerance based on religious belief or non-belief.
	The complacent and sometimes rather lazy criticism of human rights and institutions at the European level can easily drift into a reversal of the progress that we have seen in all these enormously important areas. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), who is no longer in his place, pointed out how important it is not just to accept that the conventions exist and that a piece of paper has been signed, but to ensure that cases are considered in detail and measures are enforced in member states. However, that does not mean that there is no need for reform. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s initiative to look into reforming Council of Europe institutions. The European convention on human rights is something that we should stoutly defend. We were the first state to ratify it, and we should certainly welcome the European Union’s accession to it and the application of those disciplines to its institutions.

Edward Leigh: During the lifetime of this Government, will the Liberal part of the coalition veto any attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998?

Martin Horwood: I do not think that there is any suggestion that we will repeal the Human Rights Act, which actually allows this country to exercise its sovereignty by bringing the European convention on human rights into British law and giving British judges the right to enforce it. That is a re-enforcement of British sovereignty, so I would be surprised if any such suggestion were made.
	However, the European Court of Human Rights clearly has a lot of problems. Mention has been made of the 155,000-case backlog. Obviously it is right that the British chairmanship should work to ensure that the Court’s judgments are implemented across the rest of Europe as well as they are in the UK, that its membership is of sufficiently high quality and, most importantly, that it does not act as a substitute for domestic courts.
	One good initiative by the coalition has been the establishment of the commission on a Bill of Rights, which has already made interim recommendations on reforming the Court. The commission said in July:
	“It is essential for the Court to be able to address cases involving serious questions affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, and serious issues of general importance, where the Court’s intervention is justified. The Court should be a court of last resort, and not a first port of call for all human rights issues. It should be adjudicating hundreds of cases a year, not thousands, and certainly not tens of thousands, and ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is observed by national institutions with the primary responsibility for the protection of human rights”.
	The British chairmanship should build on that report, and seize the opportunity to take forward reform of the Court. I also hope, however, that the UK chairmanship will not be entirely distracted by the mechanics of human rights, and that it will champion those rights where they need to be championed.
	In that respect, the UK chairmanship can build on the excellent work of the Foreign Secretary in his extensive report on human rights and democracy produced last year. It contains a list of countries causing concern to the British Government because of their human rights record. That list includes several European countries and one member state of the Council of Europe. Outside the Council of Europe it highlights Belarus, which is currently barred from membership because of its human rights record. The Foreign Secretary’s report describes “successive waves of repression” in that country. The Deputy Prime Minister has referred to it as “Europe’s shameful secret”. The Liberal Democrats’ own youth organisation has highlighted the struggle of its Belarusian sister organisation, Civil Forum, stating that its members
	“continue to protest against the regime despite the potential violence they often face. Their struggle for human rights and political freedom is an inspiration to the global Liberal Youth movement.”
	Sadly, I am sure that similar things could well be happening in such organisations in other political traditions as well. If the UK chairmanship can advance the cause of human rights in Belarus, that would be extremely welcome.
	Russia also gets an unfavourable mention in the Foreign Secretary’s list. The report talks about
	“restrictions on freedom of assembly, harassment and obstruction of NGOs and journalists”.
	It also states:
	“Human rights defenders in Russia remained at high risk in 2010.”
	It highlights the cases of Oleg Orlov, of the human rights organisation Memorial, and of Sapiyat Magomedova, a human rights lawyer. It also mentions the trials of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, and talks about the circumstances surrounding the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, about which many questions remain unanswered. This is all very sad, because Russia has for centuries been a pillar of European culture and civilisation, and it needs to understand that showing respect for freedom, democracy and the rule of law is absolutely essential if it is to become a full member of the European family of nations.
	As well as mentioning Belarus and Russia, the report also refers to examples even closer to the heart of Europe. Hungary’s new constitution gives cause for concern, and Amnesty International has highlighted issues in it relating to the rights of women, as well as to
	“the provision allowing for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole…and the exclusion of sexual orientation from the protected grounds of discrimination”.
	Hungary was in many ways at the starting point of Europe’s democratic revolution in 1989. It is a free democracy, and a full member of the Council of Europe and of the European Union, and it would be a great shame if it were to acquire a poor reputation in the area of human rights. I hope that under the UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe we shall see proactive debate and promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
	I welcome the Minister’s remarks on the forthcoming London conference on cyberspace. It is important for it to tackle the threats from cyber-crime and even co-ordinated cyber-attack. I also hope, however, that, in line with our role in the Council of Europe, it will emphasise the
	values of freedom on the internet and in cyberspace. Throughout the whole episode of the Arab spring so far, we have seen how important that freedom can be to championing democracy and human rights.
	On the question of the budget, the Council of Europe is a relatively small institution in the great continental scheme of things, but it has had a staggeringly large impact for its size, and I believe that it provides very good value for money. The United Kingdom should pursue an active and successful chairmanship of the Council, as that would be in our national interest, as well as in the interest of our citizens and citizens across the whole continent of Europe.

John Mann: Having heard about the worthy deeds of the Council of Europe, I shall start on the question of value for money. I was struck by that as I thought about the worthy deeds of the police and the fire service in my area, as both the police station and the fire station are being closed down. Of course there are arguments about the Government’s economic policy, but all Members recognise that there has to be a level of cuts. That means—whoever is in government—that we have to prioritise what needs to be cut in the light of what we regard as valuable. There is a consensus on that.
	It therefore seems strange to me that the Government do not appear to be proposing any cuts at all in respect of any of the international institutions or our contributions to them. I personally believe that a 30% cut for the European Union would amount to a pro-European case, and that it should be cut to the same degree as our police service and our fire service are being cut over the next four years—and not just in my area. That would seem to me appropriate.
	I am, of course, arguing that cutting the police and fire services is the wrong priority, but in developing that argument I would not claim that the Government are either intellectually or ideologically anti-police or anti-fire service. I think that the cuts are being made in the wrong place, and I find it odd, in the light of those cuts, that the Government have not yet specified—they have the ability to do so with their six-month chairmanship of the Council of Europe—how appropriate cuts will be made to the budget of such organisations. I am not entering into a dialogue over whether that body should exist—

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has researched the Council of Europe at all, but its budget is being cut in real terms. What is more, it is on a pretty slim budget anyway. It is not like the European Union—nowhere near.

John Mann: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I would say, “Count the pennies and we’ll have the pounds.” I would like the Government to explore the notion of whether there needs to be any base in Strasbourg at all, or at least whether some functions could be combined. [Interruption.] There is certainly an overlap of functions between the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. [Interruption.] I hear from sedentary comments that some Members do not agree; they are entitled not to agree. My point is that at a time of major cuts in many nation states,
	including this country, the Government should be looking to ensure that there is a commensurate cut in such bodies and in our contribution to them—and that with the chairmanship, they have the opportunity to drive that through. I look forward to seeing how it will be done.
	In announcing their priorities in a written ministerial statement yesterday, the Government said that they would
	“promote an open internet, not only in terms of access and content but also freedom of expression.”
	The statement continued:
	“We will support the adoption of the draft Council of Europe strategy on internet governance, and the implementation of the principles it has adopted to uphold freedom of expression on the internet”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 10WS.]
	I want to put some questions to the Minister and to make some points about that priority. Like every other Member, I am aware of the importance of freedom of expression on the internet. There are countries both in Europe and beyond where a lack of freedom of expression on the internet is a severe curtailment of the workings of democracy or, in some countries, of the real options for democracy. The two go together. It would be worthy and appropriate for the Government to take that work forward. There is, however, always a counter-side and a balance in these issues. Freedom of expression on the internet is not always a good thing. The Americans have a clear view on the matter, which their Supreme Court has expressed many times, including recently. For example, when a church in the United States decided to picket the funerals of gay service men who had died on active duty in Afghanistan, the Supreme Court ruled that that constituted freedom of expression.
	There are differing views on how far freedom of expression should extend, but it is a fact that in this country, under the present Government as under the last, there have been successful prosecutions of people who have used the internet for the purpose of hate crimes, and I applaud that. Successive Attorneys-General have worked hard to ensure successful prosecutions of those who abuse their ability to express themselves freely on the internet and, in so doing, stir up hatred and restrict the freedom of expression of others, including the victims whom they target.
	I chair the all-party group against anti-Semitism. Under the last Government, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) was the Minister, and, this year, under the present Government—I cannot remember the constituency of the culture Minister, the Prime Minister’s mate who is responsible for these matters—

David Lidington: Wantage.

John Mann: Yes, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). He rightly convened a conference of experts, and I note that the Government are convening another on 1 November. Have any of those involved in the conference that the hon. Gentleman rightly convened, on a cross-departmental basis, been invited to the forthcoming conference? Will the same level of expertise be involved in the examination of hate crime on the internet, or are the Government adopting an unbalanced approach while chairing the Council of Europe, and considering only one concept rather than both? That would not be in the traditions of the parties that make up the ruling Government in this country.
	The all-party group has received widespread support from Members on both sides of the House for many years. Members, including some who are in the Chamber today, have participated actively. Members of the Conservative party have participated above and beyond the normal call of duty, as indeed have members of other parties, including Liberal Democrats and, of course, Labour Members. It would be rather contradictory if the Government managed to slip into a conference on the internet on 1 November, in the context of their chairmanship of the Council of Europe, without ensuring that that conference also examines, on an expert level, including by politicians, problems relating to the use of the internet for hate crimes.
	The internet is now the place where anti-Semitic filth is spread, be it the old hatreds, the blood libels, the resurrecting of the protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the new hatreds caused by a failure to differentiate between legitimate criticism of the state of Israel and attacks on Jewish people. A wide array of offences are being committed on the internet, across Europe and across this country today, and there have been new developments in recent times. Social media sites such as YouTube carry videos, and social networking sites such as Facebook publish messages promoting anti-Semitic themes. In blogs, not least those in online newspapers, a particular theme will give rise to a string of anti-Semitic or other offensive hate messages aimed at a specific group. That is one of the problems and dilemmas surrounding the internet.
	In case any Member is not aware of the sort of stuff that is published, let me give some recent examples. Here is a nice little one which comes from somewhere quite close to my constituency. Someone has just posted this:
	“Throw the jew down the well
	So my country can be free
	You must grab him by his horns
	Then we have a big party”.
	What a charming post! The following example is from a press statement:
	“The Muslims joining the demonstration called upon the Muslim armies to march forth to fight the Jews, eradicate Israel and purify the earth of Jewish filth”.
	These examples come from this country, and there are vast amounts of this material.
	The abuse is not only anti-Semitic; other hatreds are expressed as well. Various groups of people are targeted. Gay rights groups have identified this as a problem, for example. Other issues can be involved. Sometimes people who are isolated in some way can be targeted, such as through cyber-bullying, which is a huge new problem.
	I therefore urge the Government to focus on these internet issues in their chairmanship, starting with the conference of 1 November. These problems must not be brushed under the carpet.
	Research has been done in Norway—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) says that this is not relevant; it is absolutely relevant. Yesterday, the Government said this issue would be a top priority for the Council of Europe during their chairmanship.

Oliver Heald: The point being made was how on earth can the hon. Gentleman criticise the Council of Europe about this issue, when the Council of Europe, and especially the Parliamentary Assembly, is trying to address these issues right across Europe? I serve on the committee on culture, science and education at the COE, and we are currently working on a report on this very topic.

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman is a very good parliamentarian and he used to be my MP, but he sometimes gets over-excited. I am not criticising the COE. I am proposing a cut in its budget, and in the budgets of other international institutions. That is not a criticism of the COE; rather, it is to do with the economic realities. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish to prioritise certain areas of expenditure, such as by red-circling overseas aid, they are perfectly entitled to do so. What I am saying is that the Government should use their chairmanship of the COE to implement a small cut in its budget—and that the budgets of other EU and international bodies should also be cut.

Robert Walter: I want to give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. The delegation from this place to the COE has had its budget cut, as have the delegations to other international bodies. It was cut by 10% this year, and it will be affected by the overall House of Commons budget cut of 17% in this Parliament.

John Mann: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, and let me stress that I do not celebrate such cuts, but they are, perhaps, inevitable. I have only been to Strasbourg once—it was many years ago and it was not a trip to the Council of Europe—but it is certainly an opulent place. The following question should certainly be asked: do we need European parliamentary institutions in Strasbourg as well as Brussels?

Alan Meale: I want to correct a possible misapprehension. As well as the 10% and 17% overall cuts already mentioned, for the last eight years the COE has had a nil increase in its budget, which is, in effect, a cut. The effects of these cuts are ongoing, and the COE is trying to work within the financial restrictions. In fact, one of the new secretary-general’s priorities is to deliver these cuts, and he has the support of all political parties in Strasbourg.

John Mann: Turning for a moment to what is happening in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, I could mention the closure of fire stations. I hope the Government take a lead on seeing what more can be done, and I am certain the Minister is listening to this point.
	On the Government’s priority to deal with the internet, the research from Norway, following the horrific murders there, on the propensity to violence of those surfing extremist websites needs further exploration. We need to analyse how the internet can have an impact on violence, including terrorist violence. This is a key area for us to do more work on.
	We also need to address the question of corporate responsibility, not least with the internet providers. This chairmanship provides us with a great opportunity—with the internet as a priority—for the Government to get into that dialogue with the internet providers about
	precisely what their role is, how that can be improved and how best practice can be spread among them. I mentioned the overlap in the work of bodies such as the EU and the OSCE, and work on the internet causes a huge overlap. How are the Government going to use this opportunity to ensure that this work permeates those bodies and does not stand alone, because that would not be as effective as something that crosses over and permeates work ongoing in those two bodies?
	How do the Government see the issue of education and the internet, including how young people are educated in schools on how they use and access the internet? We need to address the whole issue of grooming, child pornography and so on; important issues are involved. How are the Government going to use this opportunity to look at how best practice from other countries can be shared, how intelligence can be shared between law-enforcement agencies and what the law-enforcement regime should be, because it differs greatly between different member states of the Council of Europe?
	All this provides a huge opportunity, albeit with a reduced budget, for the Government to make a mark, using their chairmanship of the Council of Europe and using the fact that they have prioritised the internet, starting in a few days’ time with the Foreign Secretary hosting this conference. I urge the Government to make sure that the balance is struck between freedom of speech, which is vital for democracies, and tackling the hate crimes that permeate the internet. If that balance is in their chairmanship, the Government will doubtless do a good job.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is my next-door neighbour across the Trent, so I hope that there will be a sort of symmetry to our speeches; I will balance his speech for the purposes of the Gainsborough Standard. He is, of course, an ornament of Parliament, not least because he succeeds in irritating his own side as much as us, which is very good.
	You, too, are an ornament of Parliament, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are also a former member of the Council of Europe. We all recall you often flying the flag for Britain on a Friday when everybody else had gone home. We are very grateful for all the work you did in the delegation. I am not sure that anyone has yet thanked you, so I wanted to put that on the record. In the Council of Europe we are restricted to three-minute contributions. I cannot promise that I will take as little as that, but I shall try to be as quick as possible because I know that others want to speak.
	I am very proud to be a member of the Council of Europe. When we go there we see some marvellous history laid out in the foyer, with pictures of Winston Churchill speaking to one of the first sessions, if not the first. There is something very noble about this concept which, as we know, arose out of the second world war. The Council of Europe was a tremendously powerful mechanism in saying that we were never again going to have the horrors of Nazism and fascism. We should also be very proud of what the immediate past generation of members of the Council of Europe achieved in the whole transition to democracy in eastern Europe, of what the Council of Europe has achieved in eastern Europe and of how we are really defending human
	rights in eastern Europe, where there have been the most appalling and profound abuses, as there were in western Europe before 1945. To me, that is what the Council of Europe, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 are all about; it is about the fundamental freedoms that, from Magna Carta onwards, we have built up in this country. We have become a beacon of those freedoms. We all know what they are: freedom of expression and of religion, the right to privacy and a family life—wonderful, basic freedoms. That is what I believe Winston Churchill was talking about, but what we have now seen is judicial creep way beyond anything ever envisaged when the convention was agreed.
	There is a misunderstanding about this issue. Nobody on the Government Benches is suggesting that we should leave the convention. I am proud of the convention that we signed in 1949. All we are attacking is the incorporation of the convention into our law under the Human Rights Act 1998, which was passed by the Labour Government. That is our gripe. Nobody is denying that we should be a member of the Council of Europe or that we want to reform it, but this has become a very serious issue. If one looks on the front pages of the newspapers today one will see, just to take one issue, that the population of this country is due to rise within 20 years to 70 million people—a figure that the Labour Government said was quite unacceptable and would never be reached. Two thirds of that increase comes from immigration—that will put a severe strain not only on services but on good relations and human rights. This issue of immigration is therefore important.
	If the Minister for Immigration were here and were allowed to speak openly about what is happening in his Department, I am sure that he would have to admit that he is severely constrained in what he can do to deal with this problem of immigration in order to foster good race relations because of the incorporation of the convention into our law. Although he cannot tell us, because he is a Minister, what is going on inside his Department, we have, as I mentioned earlier in a couple of interventions, now heard from a former Minister for Immigration. His diary really is worth revealing because it tells us in great detail what is going on. This is not some right-winger speaking: it is a former Labour Minister—a person who voted for the 1998 Act, was then put in a position of responsibility and was, frankly, driven mad by it.

Martin Horwood: I am tempted to discuss the issue of immigration and suggest that it is more to do with providing the skills in the right jobs, as that is what is drawing in immigration—that is something that the coalition is tackling.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about getting rid of the Human Rights Act, which effectively means taking the ability to interpret the convention out of the hands of British judges and giving it back to European judges. Does he not trust British judges or does he think that by doing that we will somehow not be implementing it as fully as we would be if it were in British law?

Edward Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because this addresses precisely the point I want to make. I believe that the convention as we understood and implemented it from the late 1940s to the late 1990s
	was about the protection of fundamental rights. It was understood to be a matter of last resort. If somebody was really dissatisfied with the way that their human rights had been treated in British courts, for example in the immigration process, they could, if they wanted—frankly, after they had been removed—take a case to Strasbourg. What has happened since then—since we have incorporated it—is that we have had a tidal wave of cases coming to our own judges, and they have interpreted the convention in such a way that makes it very difficult for Ministers to do their job. Members of Parliament might not worry about whether it is bad to make it difficult for Ministers to do their job, but Ministers are responsible to this Parliament. This is the democratic forum of the British people. This Parliament should be supreme—not the courts.
	If hon. Members do not believe me, they should listen to what Mr Woolas said. I have already mentioned the case. For years we had been working on both sides of the House against forced marriages and we had been trying to raise the age of women coming here. I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) how that had been overturned by judges. I ask hon. Members to listen to this quote from Phil Woolas, the former Labour Minister for Immigration, which directly mentions the European Court. He said:
	“We have four people wanted for genocide in Rwanda (there are 100 but the four are the test case)”—
	so we have here four people who are wanted for quite serious crimes, so not very nice people. The quote continues:
	“The magistrates had agreed to extradite them but the High Court had disagreed on the grounds that they would not get a fair trial in Rwanda.
	I am advised”
	by my civil servants
	“that I should grant six months leave to remain in the UK ‘in the hope that the legal system in Rwanda improves’.
	I had asked why we couldn’t try them in The Hague and was told as they were not British, I couldn’t send them there!
	So a person accused of committing genocide in an ‘unsafe country’ (which country that has genocide is safe!) simply has to get into an ECHR country and they will get away with it. The ECHR is providing cover for people who commit genocide. Madness.”
	That is not me speaking—it is a Labour Minister.
	I will refer to another case and then I will stop. There were many others, and I recommend that hon. Members read what is going on inside the Department, because it is our only insight into what is actually happening across Ministers’ desks.
	“The French Navy detained some drug smugglers in the middle of the Atlantic. It took 14 days to get back to France because the ship was on patrol. But the…gangster took the French government to court for unlawful detention under the ECHR, saying he should have been dealt with sooner!...The smugglers have been released…I have now asked why we can’t change the law to stop this abuse but the MoD don’t want me to as they are using the same defence to protect six British soldiers, now back in the UK, who are being sued from Iraq after being accused of unlawfully detaining suspect insurgents in Basra…So, we cannot detain suspected gangsters at sea and the Human Rights Act applies in Basra. Unbelievable.”
	That is not me speaking; it is a Labour Minister.
	That is what we have come to, and it is now affecting national policy in a very profound way. The House may not agree with me about immigration, but I think it is a very serious issue for our country. We have to grapple with it if we are going to ensure good race relations in the future. I believe that a population of 70 million is unsustainable. You may not agree with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but surely you agree that this House, and Ministers responsible to us, should have the right and the power to deal with it; you do not believe that at all times their hands should be shackled behind their back because of a European convention that has been interpreted in such a way that it goes way beyond what anyone envisaged when it was set up.

Bob Stewart: The Human Rights Act also has a direct impact on operations for our armed forces, and often constrains the way in which our commanders can operate. They spend a heck of a lot of their time working out how not to offend the Human Rights Act rather than working out how they can carry out their operations. It is a very big difficulty, which we must also overcome.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful for that; my hon. Friend speaks with personal knowledge.
	I shall end in a minute. I think I have made my point and I hope I have made it in a way that the House understands. Yes, I do believe that the Council of Europe needs some reform; the Court certainly needs some reform. There are obvious things that we could do to fillet the number of cases. A backlog of 160,000 is ridiculous and unsustainable. The Court should deal with fundamental abuses of human rights, which are still going on in some countries; let us be fair about that.
	We have had recent debates in the Council of Europe about massacres and persecution of Christians in the middle east. Those are things of the sort that I think the founding fathers were thinking of—the horrible events, the disgusting and vile abuses of human rights that have been taking place in Libya within the past year, or in Syria in the past few weeks, or in Iraq over the past 10 years, and if those countries were part of the convention in the Council, that may be a good thing. That is what we should be focusing on, not these absurd, trivial cases—tens of thousands of them.
	I cannot believe that a filleting process cannot be developed. I cannot believe that we cannot have a process similar to that which our own ombudsman uses. We are constantly being approached with requests to go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and there is a very quick process which fillets out immediately all cases that are obviously not applicable to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Then the Court really could be something powerful, noble and great, which would be a beacon to the world. It really would defend human rights, because it would focus its attention on those very real abuses, which, I am afraid, are still taking place in the rest of the world and even, I suspect, in some parts of Europe in limited circumstances.
	Having done that, I believe that we should repeal the 1998 Act and replace it with our own Bill of Rights. That Bill of Rights should be based on a fundamentally British understanding of how our common law has developed since the Magna Carta. It should protect people’s individual freedoms, but not take the whole process to a ridiculous conclusion, the sort that states
	that I cannot say what I believe or speak my truth if it might somehow insult the sensibilities of, for example, an hon. Friend. For instance, there was an absurd case concerning an argument about Islam that took place over the breakfast table in a bed and breakfast. The owner made a disparaging comment about Islam, suggesting that it was a violent religion—not a comment I would have made—but it was said in the course of a normal conversation. He was promptly taken to court for somehow infringing the human rights of the person with whom he was arguing. We all know that this is profoundly un-British and that it is not working. It is preventing British Ministers carrying out what a British Parliament wants. I believe that we should replace the 1998 Act with a British Bill of Rights.

Oliver Heald: May I start by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on being made an honorary member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is well deserved? Of course, many of us are very sad that you are not so frequently there, partly because we now have to speak on Fridays, and you were always extremely good at that.
	I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said. The European Court of Human Rights has a very important function. The European convention on human rights was designed by English lawyers and expresses what were seen to be the fundamental rights of English common law—the right to a fair trial and so on. It is therefore ironic that the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the convention into English law, has somehow been seen as a new departure and used to extend the law, which I think is the mistake. It is the way in which it has been incorporated that is the problem.
	I am chairman of the executive of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, which for some years has produced publications and pamphlets arguing for a British Bill of Rights. The secret of why that approach is the right one is that it would be possible to have some kind of route map explaining how the rights should be interpreted in English law, which is what is needed. I welcome the fact that the Government have established a commission to consider that. At the Conservative party conference the Home Secretary talked about the immigration rules and how they comply with the convention. She made the point that it is not the rights themselves that are the problem, but the way they are put into English law in the immigration rules. She is now going to change those rules to ensure a more sensible approach that explains the interaction between the right to a family life and the national interest, which I think is the right way forward.
	The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) should spend a little more time researching what the Council of Europe does, because although it is an unusual creation, it is an important one. It is multi-layered: it has the Parliamentary Assembly, which does one sort of work, and the organisations allied to it, such as the group of states against corruption; it also has a congress of local and regional authorities, which involves local government across the 47 countries; then there is the Court, which deals with matters that have been presented by individuals complaining about how countries are implementing the convention. He should look at the effect of all those
	institutions acting together, because he will find that they are doing a very useful job. The Council of Europe is not an expensive institution in the way the European Union is—I agree with his criticism of the lavish expenditure on the EU and the need to cut it considerably.
	The issues that the Council of Europe as a whole addresses, such as migration, are the great issues of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has just expressed his concerns about migration. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is chair of the Council’s committee on migration, refugees and population, recently produced a major report on migration and how we should tackle it right across the Council of Europe area. It is easy to think that that is the same area as the EU, but it absolutely is not: the Council includes Russia and Turkey and so covers a vast area. As a result, it is able, if its reports are implemented, to have a serious effect on the problem of migration. It is an institution that can cope with that sort of big issue. Equally, the culture, science and education committee is looking into the very issue that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is concerned about: the internet.
	If all 47 countries sign up, it is possible to effect change. The hon. Gentleman should not think of the Council of Europe as an institution like the EU; it is not. The Council covers a wider area, it is multi-layered and, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) said, its Parliamentary Assembly also has peace missions. If we think back to the Russia-Georgia conflict a couple of years ago, we find that it was the Council of Europe that sent in a team to try to broker peace in that very dangerous situation. The Council also monitors elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was in Tunisia last week doing valuable work. The Council is spreading democracy and tackling some of the big issues as only it can, and the hon. Gentleman ought to take a more serious view of it. He spends a lot of time planning mountaineering expeditions—indeed, I once met him at the top of Scafell Pike—and he ought to do that sort of preparation on this subject.

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman has spent too much time on top of mountains, I think; he needs to listen a little more carefully. Election monitoring is also done by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and by the European Union, so there is some overlap. It is not a criticism of the work of the Council of Europe to suggest that it can take a bigger haircut along with everyone else; indeed, it is the pro case, just as it is the pro-European case to suggest a big haircut for the European Union. A credible organisation like that can get away with a haircut—because it is credible.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman made his speech, and I have disagreed with several points that he made, so we will probably have to leave it at that.
	The Government are right to make Court reform a priority, however. With a backlog of 162,000 cases, there is a need for a filter to provide some way of getting through them, and we are right to try to introduce more subsidiarity. I agree with our delegation leader, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), that we should have a system in which one needs leave to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights, although personally I think that one would need also the right, if leave were refused, to apply directly to the
	Court. That would not open a great floodgate of cases; it would just mean that, if a particular case were decided for political reasons, which is what can happen in some countries, there would be a further way through.
	On the Human Rights Act, I have mentioned my support for a British Bill of Rights, but the other issue is the quality of the judges. I have been a member of the Council’s Parliamentary Assembly for only two-and-a-half years, or perhaps three now, but that problem has been raised in the Assembly throughout that period. Some judges just do not know the Court’s law base, and there is a concern that some countries’ candidates are just not adequate. We should find ways to improve the quality.

Alan Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, so that the House is not left with the wrong impression, that we refuse candidates at every session? If they do not meet the language, experience and gender balance criteria, we do not appoint them. We send them back, time and time again to some countries.

Oliver Heald: Yes, and of course the answer is not to find a way of letting unsatisfactory candidates through; it is to secure an improvement in the quality of candidates. Knowledge of the Court’s key languages is vital; otherwise it is not possible for the judges to interact with it.
	My impression of the European Court of Human Rights is that it takes a slightly diplomatic approach to its cases and almost sprays round the judgments a bit. There is a need to act entirely on the basis of serious human rights abuses and not to feel that every country of the 47 must have a judgment against it. More focus on serious abuses of human rights would meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and other hon. Friends.
	I support Secretary-General Jagland’s programme of reform, which will save money—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw will be pleased about that—and streamline the organisation, reducing the number of committees. It is worth giving credit to Monsieur Mignon, who is rapporteur of the committee on rules of procedure, immunities and institutional affairs, and involved with the Assembly’s bureau. He has played a major part, and his report on changing the rules is a major piece of work. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset played a big part in that. Those changes will improve how the Assembly works.
	The rule of law is an important priority for the Government, and I want to mention two issues. The first is migration. If we are to tackle migration, it is important to follow the approach that the committee on migration, refugees and population set out in its recent report, when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was the rapporteur. That involves sticking by the Dublin agreement. Asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in; otherwise they may be sent back to that country. There is talk in the Council of Europe about flexibility and shared responsibility, which suggests that some people who apply for asylum could be waved through to other countries for their case to be dealt with, but that would drive a coach and horses through the regulation of migration in Europe. Many people already cross external borders illegally. It is important to stick by the Dublin
	agreement. We should also have better arrangements for patrolling the Mediterranean, and I know that the Government are supporting moves in that direction. I support the idea that our Government could send officials to help to deal with immigration cases in Greece and Italy, rather than going for the shared responsibility, wave them through approach. I hope that the Government will continue to offer that support to our southern neighbours in the hope that there will be no weakening of the Dublin agreement.
	On extraordinary rendition, Dick Marty, the Swiss parliamentarian, recently produced “Abuse of State Secrecy and National Security: Obstacles to Parliamentary and Judicial Scrutiny of Human Rights Violations”. It is his last report, because he is standing down from the Council of Europe. I pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to human rights, and his campaign against extraordinary rendition. In his latest report, he pays tribute to the all-party group in the House that deals with the issue, and describes its efforts as untiring. It is right to pay tribute also to the all-party group.
	The key point about Mr Marty’s report is that it builds on what we have been doing in this country. He says that legislation should not be a cloak for wrongdoing and highlights the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of secret services, as we do here—although, obviously, there may room for improvement in that. He points to the need for courts to develop procedures where secret information can be used without damaging state security. He also addresses the settling of the cases that arose out of Guantanamo and the report that is being produced by the special inquiry led by Sir Peter Gibson. In doing so, he acknowledges that this Government are taking the issue seriously and approaching it in a way that could be a model for other parts of Europe.
	The committee on culture, science and education is in the process of producing a report on internet governance. There has been and continues to be a good deal of argument about exactly what the report should contain. I am glad that the Government are making the issue one of their priorities. I hope that when the report comes out, assuming my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) gets his way on exactly what is in it, the Government will take it seriously and use it as part of their approach.
	Finally, I welcome the Government’s concentration on tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. What we do in this country is very seen much as the model for the rest of Europe. Some other countries are way behind—examples have been given with which I agree. It is good that our Government are going to build on the work that has been done in this country and try to spread it across the 47 countries of the Council of Europe.
	In conclusion, it is very wise of the Government to have reached agreement with Ukraine and Albania—the countries whose periods of chairmanship are on either side of ours—because that means that, over an extended period of 18 months, the chairmanship can concentrate on some issues and get a result. I wish the Government well and hope that the Interlaken process is the success that it should be. The fact that 47 countries are involved, the largeness of the geographical area covered, and the way in which the organisation is led mean that if something is done right in one country, best practice can be spread right across Europe.

Brian Binley: I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is leaving his place, for reminding me that I need a haircut this weekend.
	I am a member of the Council of Europe—and a proud member, actually. I am rather surprised by how much I am enjoying it, but you will understand the reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I welcome many of the Minister’s remarks. I was especially pleased to hear his comments about a Bill of Rights and about subsidiarity. The Government seem to have a real programme to implement over the six months of our chairmanship, and most of us in this House would welcome that. However, we shall be scrutinising his work and keeping an eye on him. That is the job of this place, and I know that he will welcome it.

Edward Leigh: No, he won’t.

Brian Binley: I am sure he will.
	The European Court of Human Rights has a proud history of defending the rights of individuals, but there is no doubt that there have been several questionable judgments that raise issues about its competence across the piece. I refer to the membership of the judges’ bench. It has already been said that a number of judges have little judicial experience, and indeed that some of them were political appointees. That does no good for the whole concept of jurisprudence. We ought to be making an effort to ensure that a court of this importance is matched by the quality of the judges who sit on its benches, and the sooner we get down to that, the better it will be. One judge was reported not to understand the concept of legal precedents. When one gets that sort of ignorance in a court of this kind, one begins to wonder what sort of justice it imparts. Indeed, many people in this country have begun to believe that some of its judgments are, to say the least, beyond the pale. Those people are responsible for overturning the decisions of this House and our courts, so we have a right to expect a greater degree of competence and better qualifications. I know that the Minister will take those thoughts on board.
	My next point is about languages—a subject touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald). The 2005 Woolf report made 26 recommendations on the working methods of the European Court of Human Rights. One was the provision of language training, and yet that has not been implemented. We all know that interpreters can change the nuance of language dramatically when they interpret one language into another. Because the nuance changes, the meaning can be totally different. That is simply unfair to the people who put their trust and faith in the European Court of Human Rights. I urge the Minister to put language training for judges on his little list as an absolute priority.
	The 2010 Interlaken conference and declaration stressed the need to preserve the high quality of the European Court of Human Rights. I have already referred to the lack of quality. This matter is consistently asked about, and it is consistently recorded that we need to do things. No wonder the people of this country get a little impatient when nothing happens. I want to send the European
	Court of Human Rights the message that it must get its act together, because it is undermining the confidence of the people of this country—and, no doubt, that of the people in other countries—which is so necessary for it in doing its work.
	I was going to talk about prisoner voting, but we had a big debate on that recently. Suffice it to say that I believe that prisoners are in prison by choice. They are not forced to break the law; they choose to break the law. Therefore, there is no problem with the removal of that human right. They choose to deny themselves that human right. We ought to do some plain talking when this matter comes before the Committee of Ministers.
	I also question the judges’ appreciation of our values and legal procedures. This nation is lucky to have a common law based on almost 1,000 years of life experience—a common law that has served this nation well. To my mind, it covered all the necessary protections of the people of this country. Indeed, they seem to think that it covered the necessary protections themselves. The fact that there are so many different codes of law in a 47 nation-strong Europe underlines the need for greater knowledge of the various codes of law in those countries. If necessary, that might require a division of the judges’ bench. We certainly need them to understand our code of law if they are making judgments about our citizens.

Martin Horwood: In arguing for an awareness of our code of law, cultural traditions and values, is the hon. Gentleman therefore arguing in support of British judges having the right to interpret the Human Rights Act 1998, and therefore the European convention on human rights, in British courts?

Brian Binley: I am delighted to say that most senior judges believe in the primacy of Parliament, and I have no concerns about that. A few judges have tried to argue differently. Only recently, I noticed the remarks of a senior judge in the Court of Appeal that underlined the importance of the primacy of this place.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Brian Binley: I want other people to be able to speak, and many Members have spoken for a long time, so I will reject the hon. Gentleman’s request on this occasion.
	I wish to touch briefly on the 162,000-case backlog in the European Court of Human Rights. We all know that it is farcical, and that something must be done about it. I am glad that the Minister has decided to do something. However, I must ask him something. I was once told by a fortune teller that I would live to beyond 80, which would be another 11 years. Will the measures that he puts in place during our chairmanship be completed, and will the list be eradicated, in that time? It worries me, and I want to go to meet my maker with a clear and untroubled mind.
	Finally, I wish to say that I know the Minister cares about these matters and is well placed to represent us in respect of them. I look forward—for the first time in many years—to action on the European Court of Human Rights that will give the British people confidence. If the Minister comes away after the six months of the British chairmanship having achieved that objective, we will all be prepared to say, “Very well done, Minister!”

David Davies: May I, too, begin by congratulating the Europe Minister on a speech that I think united not just all on the Government Benches but many members of all parties? It is obvious that he intends the chairmanship of the Council of Europe to be used in a positive way and to reform the European Court of Human Rights, which I fully support. That institution was set up in 1949, as we have heard, when we had just come out of a war against dictators and other dictators were still ruling parts of Europe—as they did until well into my lifetime, in the 1970s. It was right that a country with 1,000 years of democracy and a history of supporting human rights should be part of that process, and we should be proud of what we have done and achieved. However, there are things that have come out of the Court that rightly give everyone concern. I wish briefly to mention two with which I have had a personal involvement.
	First, a lady came to speak at a meeting I organised about four years ago. I have not spoken to her this afternoon, so I will not mention her name, but she has been in the papers. She was the victim of a sexual assault by somebody who had five convictions for sexually assaulting women, but who was successfully able to use article 8 of the European convention on human rights to ensure that he was not deported back to Sierra Leone. That is a very good example of the human rights of women in this country not being put first. We are putting the rights of rapists and serial sex attackers first, and that has to be wrong.
	The second issue, which has also been mentioned today, is the interference in the Government’s decision to try to raise the age for marrying a foreign spouse from 18 to 21. When I served on the Home Affairs Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who was here earlier, we took part in an inquiry into forced marriages. We heard terrible and shocking evidence that they were widespread in some communities, and that some young women had said in private to British embassy officials, “Please don’t give this man a visa. I don’t want to marry him,” but were unable to say that in public because of family pressure. As a result, judges in immigration tribunals did not take account of evidence that had been given in private, and they granted spouse visas. That is why the Government wanted to raise the age—to protect the human rights of young females in certain communities in this country. That should be a priority.
	I absolutely support gay rights and think it is totally unacceptable that anyone should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. I sometimes think, though, that that battle has already been won. I would not have thought that many people would think that acceptable any more, certainly in this country. I therefore wonder whether we should prioritise what I think is an even bigger issue for all of us—the thousands of young girls in this country and across Europe, and young males in some instances, who become the victims of forced marriage, domestic slavery, genital mutilation and other such completely unacceptable things.
	I am not a member of the Council of Europe, although I would be more than happy to support it in any way if I were asked to do so. None the less, I look forward very
	much to the UK’s chairmanship of that organisation, and to seeing some of the reforms that have been mentioned today.

Damian Collins: It is a pleasure to be called, and a privilege to have the chance to play a small part in this debate. The UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe comes round not very often, so we can truly say that we will not see the like of this parliamentary occasion for decades to come.
	I concur with many colleagues who have spoken, particularly on the urgent need for reform of the European Court of Human Rights and the terrible problems caused by the large backlog of cases. I am sure that all hon. Members know of constituents who simply do not know whether a case that they have submitted will ever be heard, and who do not know where they stand.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) and others commented on the importance of internet governance in Europe. That is important in terms not only of internet freedoms, which were an important part of the Arab spring, but of personal security and trade. We need the internet to work as an open common trading environment. People who seek to pass off goods or to break copyright and intellectual property protections on goods and services in the EU, and who use the internet to facilitate that, should know that the force of law will come down on them. That is a challenge for the Council of Europe, the Government and the EU.
	I should like to use the time allowed not to go over some of the matters that have already been covered, but to ask the Minister to consider ethics and integrity in sport—another important matter—as part of the work of the UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe. The debate is timely, given the Council’s work on match fixing, on which it has engaged with UEFA. It is also part of the general debate on the reform of FIFA, the governing body of world football, about which members of the Council have also had things to say.
	Sport and the ethics of sport have played an important role in the Council of Europe since it was started in 1949. Through the years, the Council has built up significant competence in specialised areas such as quality assurance in sport, and agreements adopted at world and European political levels. The Council of Europe has a unique and important role to play within the sporting environment. It is not a member state Government, an EU institution or an international Government or body, but a forum that brings together people who have concerns about the future of Europe, how countries work together, and the rights and freedoms that we all enjoy. It works across the political spectrum, including in the world of culture and sport.
	The Council passed the enlarged partial agreement on sport, which provides a forum for a discussion of ethics in sport and for championing those issues. In 2005 the Committee of Ministers adopted a recommendation that called on the Council to consider that
	“good governance in sport is a complex network of policy measures and private regulations used to promote integrity in the management of the core values of sport such as democratic, ethical, efficient and accountable sports activities; and that these measures apply equally to the public administration sector of sport and to the non-governmental sports sector”.
	The Committee also called on the Council to consider setting up
	“mechanisms to monitor the implementation of good governance in sport principles, and put in place mechanisms to deal with inappropriate or unethical behaviours in sport, including prosecution where necessary.”
	Those are fundamental points, and I am pleased that the Council considered them in its working activities. It could bring those recommendations to bear and raise the issue of good governance with FIFA, the world football body. An active debate on that has been led by Members of this Parliament—the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport this year produced a report on FIFA reform and allegations of corruption against senior officials within the game.
	FIFA is based in Europe, and as we have heard, almost every country is represented in the Council of Europe. One country that is not represented is the Vatican, which FIFA is like in some ways. It has an extremely powerful global figure—Sepp Blatter—who is beyond the protection of government. He certainly moves around the world like a latter-day pontiff or monarch, and is above the counsel of both court and Parliament.
	People who love the game of football, which is played around the world, including within the jurisdiction of this Parliament, ask, “Is that right? Is there a role for international bodies such as the Council of Europe and parliamentary bodies and Parliaments to speak up?” Allegations of corruption against senior members of FIFA and members of the FIFA executive committee have been made in this Parliament. It is right that we take those allegations up with such governing bodies, and that we challenge the president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter. It is also right to ask whether FIFA is putting its house in order, and whether the concerns of the citizens of Europe, including citizens of this country, are being dealt with by governing bodies. Should we not seek to prosecute people who have done wrong, and launch independent investigations into allegations of wrongdoing?
	FIFA is a particularly good—or rather, bad—example of a body challenged by allegations of corruption against its most senior people. In the past 12 months, of the leading 24 FIFA members who make up the executive committee, 11 have faced serious allegations of corruption, two have been suspended, one has been banned for life, one has resigned and four are currently under investigation. This is a body in considerable crisis. In June Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, committed the organisation to leading a process of internal reform. I believe that that process needs to move a lot more quickly. I believe that no real progress has been made. At the FIFA congress earlier this month, Sepp Blatter set out a taskforce.

Brian Binley: My hon. Friend knows that I am very interested in football, and in fact played for a long time. Does he not think that Sepp Blatter is part of the problem, not part of the answer, and that the review of FIFA ought to be independent and made up of a global group of people who really understand football?

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For a review of FIFA to have any meaning, there needs to be a fully independent investigation into all the allegations made. Transparency International, which conducted a report for FIFA, said that this should be
	the first step towards cleaning up FIFA. It should involve people from outside the organisation and from different walks of life—perhaps judges, people in politics and people with experience of governance in other sporting institutions—who could take the lead and have the power to initiate their own investigations, produce their own reports and do so in public. FIFA has set up a taskforce to look at good governance within FIFA. I think that that needs to move faster and that it should consider commissioning people from outside the organisation to lead the investigations internally. That is absolutely key.
	We know of the concerns expressed by some of the judges who have served on FIFA’s ethics committee. In January one of Germany’s most respected judges, Günter Hirsch, left the committee in disgust and said:
	“The events of the past few weeks have raised and strengthened the impression that responsible persons in Fifa have no real interest in playing an active role in resolving, punishing and avoiding violations against ethic regulations of Fifa.”
	These are legitimate areas of public concern, and it is legitimate for Parliament to take an interest in them too. FIFA has taken some steps forward in the past few weeks. The idea that the location of the World cup should be decided not by an elite few people in the game, but by representatives of every FIFA member, is a step in the right direction. However, widespread investigations are needed into all the allegations of corruption made so far, so that there can be a clean slate.
	There has to be greater transparency in the work of FIFA and in how its money is spent, particularly in developing football countries around the world, so that it can be audited and publicly accounted for, just as the work of Parliament or the Government is. The backgrounds of people who serve on international bodies such as FIFA should be clear. If they have any conflicts of interest those should be made clear, as is the case for a member of the Government or a Member of Parliament. If they have financial interests, or their family members have financial interests, in football, it should be on the public record. Any pounds spent by FIFA anywhere in the world should be accounted for. We should know where they go. That is what is required to put football’s governing body back on an even keel and to restore faith in it. However, because of how it is constituted, that change has to be driven by FIFA and Sepp Blatter.
	The pace of that change and reform must be greatly accelerated, and it must have a degree of transparency that it simply does not have now. The Council of Europe, and the UK’s chairmanship of it, could consider that matter as part of the work of the Council’s sub-committee on youth and sport. We should debate those issues within that forum, alongside its work on other areas of ethics in sport, particularly match fixing, as I mentioned earlier. It should produce its own report and view to add to the external pressure that must be placed on FIFA, if the necessary reforms are to be put in place and we are to have confidence in FIFA as a world governing body. That would be an incredibly important and popular thing for the Council of Europe to do, and a great way for the UK’s chairmanship to demonstrate its commitment to ethics and sport, as well as the other important areas of work that the Minister outlined.

James Clappison: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I am sure that football supporters throughout the United Kingdom would echo his remarks—as an England supporter, I certainly endorse what he said—and I am sure that everyone shares his concern about how our beloved game is being administered internationally.
	I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) for his sterling work in leading the British delegation to the Council of Europe, but I would also like to pay tribute to Opposition Members who have led the delegation while I have been a member of it. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is the chairman of the Council of Europe’s migration committee, on which I have the pleasure of serving, for all his hard work in that capacity, and in such an important field. It has been instructive and interesting for me to see how other European Union member states and their representatives view migration. For my part, I am concerned that the questions of who should be permitted to cross borders, who should be permitted to reside in countries, settle in them and become citizens, and who should be removed from them should principally be a matter for member states’ Parliaments and not determined by European law. We must be careful to ensure that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights does not obtrude unnecessarily in the field of migration.
	I want to make three points about what lies ahead for the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe. The first concerns the European Union. I have already made one speech in the Chamber about the European Union this week, and Members might feel that one is enough for a week—I certainly feel it is. However, it is not me who is bringing the European Union into this debate; rather, the European Union is bringing itself in. It seeks to accede to the European convention on human rights and wants Members of the European Parliament to participate in some of the Council of Europe’s activities. I have many reservations of principle about the accession of the European Union to the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights. I am not clear on what basis the EU seeks to accede to the convention, because every other member of the convention is a nation state and the EU says that it is not one. I am not clear as to whether the change is needed, because the member states of the European Union are already members of the Council of Europe and the European Union already has a charter of fundamental rights, to which the treaty of Lisbon gives legal effect, covering much the same ground as the European convention on human rights. As a result, the prevailing legal position on human rights in Europe could be complicated by the two sets of conventions.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is an enthusiast for the convention if nothing else.

Martin Horwood: Surely the point is that the European Union institutions should not be beyond the reach of the convention. Is the hon. Gentleman not missing the opportunity to take the European Commission to the European Court?

James Clappison: I think it has been conceded that any citizen in the European Union who feels that their human rights have been breached can already take the European Union to the European Court of Human Rights through the activities of their member state. That can already be done, and it is not clear what the effect of the European Union joining the convention will be.
	However, having said that, I deal with this issue in a pragmatic way. We are where we are; the European Union is going to join. The question for British representation and our chairmanship of the Council of Europe is how we make a success of things and smooth out some of the difficulties. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to pay careful attention to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset raised about the way in which the European Union members in the Committee of Ministers will operate. There should be no question of any caucusing or any departure from the representation that normally takes place, where every member state on the Committee of Ministers sits as an individual member state. If we depart from that principle, we are in danger of creating two classes of members in the Council of Europe: those that are members of the European Union and those that are not. That would be damaging, so I hope that it does not happen.
	I feel confident that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will work hard to ensure that that does not happen, so that we obtain whatever benefits are to be obtained—at least there is one Member in the Chamber, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, who thinks there will be some benefits; I think it will be more a question of mitigating the damage—and make the best of things. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset is not approaching these issues as one who is a completely hardened Eurosceptic, as we know from his speech on this matter the other evening. His voice on this should be listened to, as someone who wants this to succeed and who is taking a pragmatic point of view. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will pay attention to that, and work hard, as I know he does in every other field of the European Union, to make this a success.
	My second point that the British chairmanship could take forward relates to the emerging democracies on the borders and in the neighbourhood of Europe. I am thinking particularly of those that have been involved in the Arab spring. The Council of Europe has built up a good record over a long period of helping to promote democracy in newly democratic states in Europe. Indeed, that is part of its history that has perhaps not been emphasised sufficiently this afternoon. It started in the dark days of the cold war, when it had a small membership. As the cold war ended, and we began to have more democratic states in Europe, the Council of Europe did a very good job of promoting and safeguarding democratic values.
	Obviously, the countries on the borders of Europe in the Arab world are in a different position, but there can be a role for the Council of Europe in promoting democracy in those countries. It has already established its partnership for democracy scheme, which is now in operation in Morocco, and it has agreed to give the same status to the Palestinian Authority. This can only be a good thing, and it is in everyone’s interests to promote human rights in countries that have had a political culture of dictatorship and have not been
	democracies in the recent past. I would therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take forward that good work, as it will be to the profit of the Council of Europe and of this country.
	My third point is a more general one, and it echoes some of the points made already this afternoon, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). May we have a tighter focus during our chairmanship on what are generally regarded as human rights? It would be quite an undertaking to try to define human rights in the time that I have available, but I would like us to focus on those things that members of the public, our constituents, would recognise as human rights. They include the right to life itself, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of assembly. Those are generally accepted as human rights.
	It has to be said that, today in Britain, human rights have rather a poor image compared with the one that they had 20 or 30 years ago. Today, if one raises the issue of human rights with the general public, one is more likely to elicit a groan than a cheer. That was not always the case, however. Certainly, in the 1960s, 1970s and—dare I say it—the 1980s, people regarded human rights in a positive way. They associated them with admirable organisations such as Amnesty International, with the dissidents in the former Soviet Union and with the people fighting apartheid in South Africa. Human rights had a positive image, but things are very different today.
	In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made some important points about the perception of human rights. I have to say that there is a clue as to what the turning point was. It seems to have come at about the same time as the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. I remember this because I was in the House at the time. There were those who said that we should be careful about the effect of incorporating the convention on human rights into British law. They pointed out that our legal system was very different from other European legal systems, and that the effect of its incorporation could create considerable difficulty. They also said that it could lead to more and more judgments of a political nature masquerading as judgments on human rights. So far as the Council of Europe is concerned, if Ministers can bring the focus on human rights more tightly on to what people regard as human rights, that would be a good thing.
	There is still a need for the safeguarding of human rights in Europe, and even—dare I say it—in this country. Even after the passage of the much-vaunted Human Rights Act, there have been serious violations of human rights affecting this country that were not even covered by the Act. They have, however, been the subject of very good investigations by the Council of Europe. I am thinking particularly—this took place during my time on the Council of Europe—of the very good investigation into extraordinary rendition, which was carried out by the Swiss senator, Mr Marty, and the relevant committee of the Council of Europe. At that time, the question of extraordinary rendition was not terribly fashionable. Only a few lonely voices, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), raised the issue here, and he was met by a wall of silence when he did so. It was denied that there were any problems for this country with extraordinary rendition. My hon. Friend tried to shed light on it, but not much light was shed.
	It has turned out to be the case—not least through the work of the Council of Europe and Senator Marty—that there were indeed matters that needed to have light shed on them at that time. I believe that apologies or acknowledgements have been made that there were problems involving extraordinary rendition, which were denied from the Dispatch Box but were in fact taking place. There certainly were issues of extraordinary rendition on British territory, and there were the “black sites” and the circuit flights used for that purpose in Europe more widely. All of that was brought to light through the work of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has indeed played a very good role, as torture is something that I think we would all accept as being a breach of human rights. My hon. Friends who served on the relevant committees did a very good job in helping to reveal the facts.
	The Council of Europe does not receive a great deal of publicity in this country, but I think it does a very good job in dialogue with other member states, including the new democracies in Europe. It does a good job also in dialogue with the states that have observer status on the Council of Europe, including the state of Israel. It has certainly worked hard with those observer countries to promote human rights through them.
	The question of the cost of the Council of Europe was raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I think we all need to be vigilant about the costs of these international assemblies, but as has been said, the Council of Europe has not had its expenditure increased, so it has had a real-terms reduction over several years. We should all look carefully at this.
	Perhaps a better place to start in the search for cost reductions in our representation in international organisations would be with the European Parliament, which has—today, as it happens—submitted a request for a 5.2% increase in the European budget, coming on top of a claim for an increase of 6% last year, which resulted in an actual increase of 2.9%. I hope that our Ministers will continue to work as hard as they have—it is very much to the credit of my right hon. and hon. Friends that they were at the forefront of the effort—to keep the European budget down. They fought hard, but of course they have to work with the other member states and the other institutions of the EU. There was certainly no lack of effort. In light of the comments from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends’ work to control these budgets will get support from all parties. I hope we will not hear something said from either side of the Dispatch Box that is not then followed up in the activities of the MEPs of the parties in question.
	I wish the Minister for Europe well in his role. I know he is very busy, with many other matters to attend to. I hope that Britain makes a success, as I am sure it will, of its chairmanship of the Council of Europe. There will be some big issues to confront. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will rise to those issues and that we will showcase our own very good record in these matters, while also giving impetus on the important challenges that lie ahead—not just in Europe, but in the countries near to Europe—in promoting and safeguarding human rights at this very sensitive time.

David Lidington: With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker.
	First, let me thank every Member who has taken part in what has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion of issues within the remit of the Council of Europe.
	The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), in which he dwelt on how the Council of Europe addresses questions of sport and seeks to root out corruption in sport, served to remind us of the breadth of the remit of the Council and its various committees.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who referred to Russia and other countries whose human rights records have been subject to a great deal of criticism, reminded us that, although we who live in countries with long and well-established national traditions of human rights sometimes find it irksome when judgments are made against us, the principles that are incorporated in the convention, and subject to judgments by an independent court, still matter hugely to citizens of countries that do not have established, centuries-old traditions such as those that we are fortunate enough to enjoy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) rightly drew attention to the way in which the Council of Europe is already contributing to the development of democratic traditions and the growth of the rule of law in the fledgling democracies of north Africa. We strongly support that work, and hope that it will continue. When he pointed out that in this country, until fairly recently, human rights were regarded universally as something that should be welcomed and supported, I was reminded of the fact that the European convention on human rights was, and is, based on noble ideas. At the end of last month, I met in Warsaw members of the opposition parties from Belarus, one of the few countries in Europe that are not party to the convention. That brought home to me the importance of our not taking for granted the liberties and rights that we and our citizens enjoy. My hon. Friend’s comments about extraordinary rendition were a salutary reminder that, however strong our traditions of human rights in much of Europe, we cannot afford to be complacent about them.
	As has emerged during the debate, there is a range of views about how human rights are best protected, and about the respective roles of national authorities and the European Court of Human Rights. That is, of course, one of the issues that we intend to address during our chairmanship. The principle that we will advance is that national authorities of member states—their Governments, legislatures and courts—have the primary responsibility to guarantee and protect human rights at a national level. The role of the European Court of Human Rights is subsidiary in achieving those objectives.
	During our chairmanship, we will work with all the member states of the Council of Europe to see how that agreed guiding principle, which was built into the Izmir declaration earlier this year, should work and can be strengthened. However, it is important to note that the corollary of the principle is proper implementation of the convention by national authorities. Of course the United Kingdom should still be subject to judgments of the Strasbourg court, but the court should not normally need to intervene in cases that have already been properly considered by national courts applying the convention.
	I am under no illusion about the fact that agreeing on the necessary reforms will not be easy. Consensus among all 47 member states is required. I am, however, struck by the degree of consensus that already exists. Virtually everyone agrees that the current situation is unsustainable and undermines the court’s authority and effectiveness. However, we have already made progress. In April this year, all 47 countries called for the court to exercise restraint when interfering in national decisions on the deportation of asylum seekers and others who have exhausted fair and effective domestic court procedures. Since then, we have talked to many member states and to key individuals in the Council of Europe. We know that there is an appetite for further reforms. We will work energetically to gain agreement on a reform package, and will give it the highest priority during our chairmanship. I shall respond to as many points raised as possible. I apologise to any colleagues whose contributions I do not have time to address, and I undertake to write to them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) asked several questions. On the budget of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the UK has long-stressed the importance of the EU not duplicating the work of the COE, which we believe is, and should remain, the prime European focus for work on human rights. While the FRA of the European Union does some interesting research, the COE does far more valuable work, and does so with fewer resources.
	My hon. Friend also questioned the figures I gave on the backlog of cases. I have had the latest figures checked and there are approximately 155,000 cases in the backlog. That figure has dropped slightly in recent times, from about 160,000.
	My hon. Friend focused on the accession of the EU to the COE, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere also mentioned that. This is a complex matter, and negotiations are still ongoing. I undertake to write to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, giving further details on this, but for now I shall briefly explain where we are at present. As the House knows, EU accession to the COE was one element of the treaty of Lisbon, which was ratified by all 27 member states in 2009. There is considerable fear that the interaction of EU accession in its own right to the COE with the duty of sincere co-operation, which applies to all member states of the EU, could lead to the creation of an EU caucus within the structures of the COE. The British Government’s position is that while we accept what is written in the Lisbon treaty—that the EU should accede to the COE—and while we can see the advantages of placing the institutions of the EU clearly within the remit of the European Court of Human Rights, we will only agree to the detailed instrument of accession when we are completely satisfied about the detail not only of the drafting of the instrument of accession itself, but, importantly, of the drafting of the EU’s own set of rules on how its membership of the COE would be made operational and how, in particular, that would interact with the duty of sincere co-operation.

James Clappison: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach to this matter. Can he confirm that in his discussions at the European level, we will have a right of veto? In other words, will this be subject to unanimity, so we can insist on the very important points he has just made?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right: there has to be unanimity within the EU before accession can take place. Further, there must also be an important role for our Parliament. Under the European Union Act 2011, once agreement is reached on the detail of EU accession, the Government would be required to place that decision before each House of Parliament, and there would have to be a debate and a vote in this place and in the House of Lords before the UK could ratify EU accession to the COE. So not only the British Government but Parliament have to agree before that can happen.
	The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) asked, first, whether British Ministers would report to the Parliamentary Assembly during the six months of our chairmanship. The answer is yes. I have agreed to attend the session in Edinburgh in November and those in Strasbourg in February and April next year to report on the progress made under our chairmanship.
	The hon. Lady also asked for examples of cases in which the Court had substituted its judgment for that of national courts. An issue that came up in the Interlaken declaration on the removal of people from a country when their case had been properly considered by the national courts is key here, as all 47 countries agreed that the Court was looking in too much detail at matters that had been quite properly considered by national authorities. In recent judgments against not only us but Sweden, the Court has checked findings of fact made by national courts in cases about removing people from the country. For example, it has insisted on considering the applicant’s credibility or family situation, but those are not matters that should be considered at the European level.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary went to Izmir, and the declaration adopted at that conference in April called for a stricter approach to interim measures under rule 39, which, as the hon. Lady knows, is often used to halt deportations, with the Court intervening only exceptionally if cases have been considered by fair and effective national procedures. I hope that the marker put down by all 47 countries at Izmir also gives some comfort to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and others who have expressed particular concern about the impact of Court judgments on immigration policy.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South and for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) asked about the appointment of judges and whether the Interlaken process would diminish the democratic element regarding the election of judges to the Strasbourg court. The key part of the process that requires reform is the national procedures by which each state selects the list of three candidates whom it proposes to the Parliamentary Assembly. If we get this right, concerns about the quality of judges should fall away. We have welcomed the establishment of a panel of the Council of Ministers to ensure that all states put forward three well-qualified candidates for those posts and it has already taken France to task on this very point. We are driving forward work on a recommendation that would lay down standards for national procedures in all 47 states, and I am pleased to report that according to the Parliamentary Assembly itself the United Kingdom is a beacon of good practice in this regard.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Gainsborough asked about the recommendation by the Bill of Rights commission that the Strasbourg Court should consider only the most important cases. Our position as a Government on this is that the Court should focus on areas where the convention is not being properly applied or where there is a genuine need at the European level for authoritative guidance on its interpretation. Where member states are applying the convention effectively, the Court should intervene less.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough also raised a number of concerns about immigration. He will understand if I do not comment on individual cases, especially on the basis of Mr Woolas’s memoirs. My hon. Friend said that his arguments were not so much about the principles embodied in the convention—indeed, he spoke up in favour of the convention—but about the means by which it is implemented and applied in this country. I take his comments in that spirit. I remind him again of the work of the independent commission and encourage him to make representations to Sir Leigh Lewis and his colleagues. I would also recommend, if he has not done so already, that he have a look at the very thought-provoking speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General at Lincoln’s Inn on Monday, in which, among other things, he discussed the relationship of the United Kingdom Supreme Court to the European Court of Human Rights and indicated how his thinking was developing on that matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) made several criticisms—more, I think, of the implementation of the convention in this country than of the convention per se. I took her points seriously. When she and other hon. Friends make those criticisms, they are speaking on behalf of large numbers of constituents who have expressed concerns. But I would caution my hon. Friend and the House about one of the statistics that was deployed—the claim that the Court finds a violation in 87% of all cases and in 61% of cases against the United Kingdom. These proportions are only of the cases where there is a judgment. We must remember that 97% of cases against the UK are thrown out without even having their merits considered, because they are ruled inadmissible. If we look at the raw figures for 2010 and 2011 so far, the Court has decided 1,713 cases that were brought against the United Kingdom, but only 33 of those 1,713 were decided by a judgment; the rest were simply ruled inadmissible by the Court or struck out completely. Given that only 33 went to a judgment, it is not wholly surprising that a relatively high proportion of those 33 cases were decently arguable and led to the finding of a violation.
	My hon. Friend also spoke about how one set of rights was seen to be overruled by another set. I know that comes up frequently at public events. As the House knows, and members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe know all too well, the convention expresses a number of different human rights and it is a clear principle that where those rights conflict there is a duty on the countries that are party to the convention to balance those rights in a way that is just and proportionate in the circumstances of a particular case. There is a legitimate debate about where the right to take a final decision in any case should lie—with Strasbourg,
	with domestic courts, with legislatures or with the Executive in a particular country. Then there is a further argument about whether, in any individual circumstances, whichever authority it is has achieved the right balance in finding a judgment that is right, just and proportionate. We will never get away completely from that type of argument, any more than we do when we read reports of judgments in domestic civil and criminal cases.
	The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked whether I would support Finnish and Spanish Ministers’ work on local government reform. I can guarantee that the Government will work towards a more effective and efficient role for the Council of Europe in supporting local and regional democracy. We want to see the Council’s work in this field streamlined and more carefully targeted. We are looking forward to Mr Chavez’s report and we will ensure that its recommendations are given serious consideration.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) raised constituency cases as illustrations of a general complaint that countries party to the convention allow people to be detained for far too long without charge or trial. He fights fiercely on behalf of his constituents whom he believes have been treated unjustly. He knows from discussions that he and I have had that the individuals concerned can make an application to Strasbourg regarding an alleged violation of articles 5 and 6 by their detention without trial. The problem is that the text of the convention does not define what a reasonable period of such detention is. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to campaign vigorously on this matter.
	My hon. Friend also asked about a convention on transfrontier broadcasting. My understanding is that the European Union has exclusive competence in this area, so there would be problems with an EU member state signing a Council of Europe convention on the matter. On that basis, the Committee of Ministers has agreed to discontinue work on that convention, pending further consultation. However, I will consider my hon. Friend’s point further, consult colleagues in other Departments that are more directly responsible for broadcasting policy and then write to him on the matter.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and Falkirk—

Michael Connarty: East Falkirk.

David Lidington: I do not wish to accuse him of having further territorial ambitions.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) asked about two other conventions. On the European framework convention on youth rights, the Government still take the view that we do not recognise the need for such a convention as all the matters described in the draft recommendation are already covered by the UN convention on the rights of the child, which actually goes further than the proposed Council of Europe convention. On the convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation
	and sexual abuse, we agree completely. That is an appalling crime and a form of child sexual abuse. Tackling it is an absolute priority for the Government. The convention sets standards to ensure that countries criminalise sexual exploitation and the abuse of children and adopt similar standards of investigation and prosecution of these crimes. Officials across a number of Departments are currently considering in detail the steps that would be required to ratify the convention. I am sure that a report will be made to the House as soon as decisions have been taken.
	The hon. Member for Bassetlaw asked about next week’s cyber-space conference in London. I have been unable to check the guest list, but the conference will encompass the issue of cyber-crime and a lot more, too. It will deal with economic growth, the social benefits of using cyber-space, safe and reliable access to it, and international security.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South asked about the European Court’s backlog. We certainly aim to ensure that a time scale is set for the implementation of any measures agreed during our chairmanship, including clearing inadmissible and repetitive cases from the backlog. We will also learn from the experience of previous attempts to reform the Strasbourg Court. I completely take the point that we must not be timid in the measures we take. We will ensure that the long-term context is considered when agreeing short and medium-term measures. I very much hope that he will be able to see the fruits of the work that he supported today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) raised a number of issues, most of which related to the implementation of the convention in this country. Like him, I have had some cases of forced marriage in my constituency surgery, and I think that the basic principle is less about the convention or the Human Rights Act, and more about the fact that it is a principle of any British court or immigration tribunal that evidence given to a judge by one party must be shared with the other party. Like him, I have had the difficult situation in constituency cases where the person who says that she is the victim is afraid to speak out in public, but the immigration judge cannot be asked to take account of evidence in secret without the other side having the chance to respond to it and to rebut it.
	The Council of Europe has been enormously successful in promoting common standards and values among its membership, not least as a result of the convention system, which the United Kingdom has had a hand in creating. It matters a great deal to the Government that human rights, democracy and the rule of law flourish in all member states of the Council of Europe. In this light, we see our chairmanship as a genuine opportunity to strengthen further a rules-based international system and to further British interests by strengthening the global rule of law and championing human rights.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.

BAE SYSTEMS (LANCASHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Mark Hendrick: BAE Systems recently announced 1,423 job losses in Lancashire, including 822 at the Warton site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), 565 at the Samlesbury site in your Chorley constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, and a further 136 elsewhere in Lancashire. Many of the highly skilled workers who will find themselves out of work live in Preston and the surrounding area of central Lancashire.
	The chief executive of Preston city council, Lorraine Norris, has written to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Friend of the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who is here to reply to this debate, and in a fairly detailed letter that makes its points quite strongly, Ms Norris, with the support the Labour administration in Preston, says:
	“Lancashire provides the greatest number of direct and indirect aerospace jobs in the country and while individuals affected by BAE redundancies may be able to find work elsewhere by moving to other parts of the country, their skills will be lost to the local economy and the Lancashire economy weakened. Because of their long lead in time, skilled jobs lost in this way cannot easily be replaced when the country’s economic fortunes improve.”
	She goes on to say:
	“Preston has been successful in moving away from an economy dominated by low-value manufacturing linked to the textile industry”—
	like Yorkshire—
	“and broadening its economic base. We have been able to retain and expand high value manufacturing jobs linked to advanced engineering, with strengths in both the aerospace and nuclear sectors. With our partners we have been working hard to improve links between industry and the Higher Education sector—particularly with the Universities of Manchester and Central Lancashire… As a result in the decade up to 2008 we have been able to demonstrate the third highest increase in private sector jobs in the country.”
	The Government talk about rebalancing the economy. Nobody and no area has done more to rebalance it than Preston and central Lancashire, given that many civil service and public service jobs were located there, and that of course it has a large private sector.
	Unemployment is at a 17-year high. In Preston it stands at 5.2%, compared with 3.9% nationally, and almost 5,000 people are seeking employment, which is the highest level since jobseeker’s allowance was introduced. BAE Systems employs about 40,000 people in the UK, down from 42,000 in 2009. Many of those jobs are based in the north-west, and given the work’s technical nature the majority of workers are highly skilled.
	Let me give the Minister some facts and figures. In Preston and Fylde, one in four residents working in manufacturing works at BAE Systems, principally at the Warton and Samlesbury sites. Between 2008 and 2010, Preston lost 4,800, or 5.1%, employee jobs, against a fall of 2.4% in the 12 districts of Lancashire and a drop of 3.4% nationally. That is a tragedy. The success of the company is therefore vital to the regional and
	national economies. BAE makes a direct contribution to them, and many other jobs in Lancashire are dependent on BAE. It has been independently estimated that each aerospace job creates four or five related jobs in the supply chain. There is therefore a multiplier effect on unemployment and the economic picture is far worse than the headline figure suggests.
	The announcement of more than 1,400 job losses is a devastating blow, first and foremost for the workers and their families, but also for the local economy and Britain’s wider manufacturing and defence industries. As cuts are made and contracts go overseas, a highly skilled workforce is being lost. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills some weeks ago to ask what steps the Government are taking to limit the impact of the job losses, but I am sorry to say that, despite the urgency, I have yet to receive a reply.

Graham Jones: I asked the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about an employment impact assessment, but have yet to receive a credible reply. It seems that no such an assessment has been made. Does my hon. Friend agree that it appears that employment is considered to be a price worth paying? EADS and the Italian workshare contractors are making no one unemployed—that was reported in the Financial Times on 3 October—but the Government seem to think that it does not matter if 3,000 people are made unemployed.

Mark Hendrick: I agree. Although the enterprise zones are a welcome addition to Lancashire, they are a sticking plaster to try to cover the running sore that the job losses have become in Lancashire. The announcement of 1,400 job losses is a devastating blow.
	A key area of development at the Warton and Samlesbury sites is the manufacture of the Eurofighter Typhoon jet. It recently flew its first major combat mission, serving in the skies over Libya to help the National Transitional Council in its war against Gaddafi, which is testament to the need for the aircraft. The production work is taking place in three tranches. Tranches 1 and 2, involving the production of 384 Typhoons, are now complete, and include 144 jets ordered by the previous Labour Government, with the remainder going to our European partners. The Labour Government also signed up to tranche 3A, which is the subject of the current defence cuts. The coalition Government are now planning to halve the UK’s tranche 3 order. BAE will cut its production from 61 to 36 jets annually, resulting in thousands of job losses. How can the Government justify massive cuts to our defence industry when the economy is edging towards recession? These cuts go too far, too fast and are resulting in the slowdown in production of the Typhoon aircraft.

John Woodcock: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is he aware that the disappointment and support for those workers is shared throughout the north-west, not least because of the synergies in the defence industry in that region? Is he also aware that Barrow shipyard is an example of how the submarine supply chain could be damaged as companies that supply the Typhoons lose orders and their workers are put under threat?

Mark Hendrick: I am well aware of the synergies, the skills that are employed in the submarine and shipbuilding industries and the implications for aircraft carriers. They are connected, and everyone who works in the defence industry throughout the country is worried.
	If the Government made more finance available, BAE could ramp down production of Typhoons more gradually, instead of the step-down transition. That would enable the company to mitigate the impact of job losses by steadily reducing its work force as workers now in their early 50s approach retirement. That would coincide with the conclusion of tranche 3A production in 2015. The unions at BAE are in favour of that approach—a gradual ramping down while meeting the country’s defence needs, instead of a drop from 61 aircraft to 36 a year from January next year—but that is not happening. As in so many other areas, the Government’s strategic defence review was rushed and ill thought through. Labour Members recognise that some savings must be made, but they should be part of a carefully constructed industrial strategy, not a rushed and ideologically driven SDSR.
	The decision to cut production has wreaked havoc with BAE’s medium-term and long-term plans and produced a great deal of uncertainty. A highly skilled work force will be lost forever. Thousands of years of accumulated experience and skills will be thrown aside, and although orders may arrive in future from India or, possibly, Japan, the loss of these workers will be tragic. Many will go to work in other parts of the country and take up new positions; many will take early retirement and be lost to the industry for ever.
	Simply put, this Conservative-led Government do not understand the consequences that their policies have on workers, on businesses or on the manufacturing economy as a whole. Typhoon could be made more competitive and attractive for export by improvements to its radar capabilities. Will the Government fund the development of the E-Scan radar system? If so, will the Minister update the House on whether funding has been allocated for that development and whether the finance has been sent to SELEX or to BAE Systems? I invite the Minister to intervene to deal with that point.

Mark Prisk: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the assessment is under way between the Government and industry, and it would be a mistake to pre-judge its outcome. We are funding and engaged in that assessment programme and we are hopeful that it will be advantageous. It is important to bear in mind that this will be at the forefront of European technology; it is an important long-term investment.

Mark Hendrick: I am not sure whether that was a yes or a no on whether the funding was made available. When trade unions met the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), at the Conservative party conference—the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, was also present at the meeting, but arrived late—they were assured that the money had been allocated for E-Scan radar, but Ian King from BAE Systems has said that no money has been allocated or transferred to the company, and SELEX says the same, despite the fact that the Defence Minister gave assurances that that money was going to the E-Scan programme.
	It is imperative that the Government provide a coherent plan of action to help Britain’s defence industry and the wider manufacturing sector as a whole. The longer BAE is able to keep workers, the better prepared it will be to meet demand should other countries order Typhoon jets. Will the Minister tell the House what steps his Government are taking, not only at ministerial level but through UK Trade & Investment, to secure defence contracts from India and Japan, both of which have been linked to the Typhoon project?
	In his first major speech after the general election, the Prime Minister pledged to make the next decade
	“the most entrepreneurial and dynamic in our history”
	and said that he wanted to
	“give manufacturing another chance in this country.”
	Speaking of his desire to rebalance the economy, he said that Britain had become
	“heavily reliant on just a few industries and in just a few regions—particularly London and the South East.”
	The actions of his Government in the past year have demonstrated that those were empty words.
	BAE is a world-leading manufacturer that contributed £4.9 billion to UK exports in 2009—about 2.1% of Britain’s total goods. Half its UK employees are based in the north, and it is being forced to cut jobs. The manufacturing industry base of this country is in crisis and the Government have no clear plan of action—indeed, by squeezing the life out of the economy, they are significantly contributing to the problem.
	The Prime Minister and the Chancellor claimed at the Budget to have a plan for growth. Is it not the case that the cuts will not help growth in this country, but will achieve the opposite by reducing production and GDP to make the economy worse off, not better? Time and again, this Conservative Government have shown a complete lack of support for the manufacturing sector in this country. We saw it with Bombardier, we saw it with Sheffield Forgemasters, and now we are seeing it with BAE Systems. I promise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Britain will not recover from the global economic crisis without a strong manufacturing base.
	We know that the cuts are going too far and too fast. We know that there are problems in the eurozone that Governments are grappling with. Those problems will make us much more likely to go into recession. The measures that the Government are taking in cutting the defence budget are also causing problems in keeping the economy moving. When are the Government going to realise that and start providing the support that the manufacturing industry in this country is crying out for?

Mark Menzies: I thank the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) for being generous in allowing me to take some time in an important debate for all our constituencies. Your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, and mine share a plant. I have the proud home of BAE Systems in Warton and you have Samlesbury. We do not need to think too long and hard to know how important those jobs and those plants are. We also know how devastating such job losses are for local communities.
	I want to use this debate to remind the House of what the Government are doing and to focus on what is still to be done. The Government are supporting Typhoon exports in a way that no Government have in recent history. There are some positive stories and some potential contracts that could come home.

Graham Jones: I ask all Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), whether there will be a displacement of the RAF orders into the export orders. That is the big question.

Mark Menzies: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Some of the orders that were originally planned for the RAF could well be displaced into other orders. My main concern is ensuring that aircraft are being built. Who the end customer is is a secondary matter. I want aircraft to be built in my constituency, and I want its world-class work force to be employed.
	We saw the world-class Typhoon aircraft coming of age in Libya. I would like to ensure that systems such as the E-Scan radar are fully available for export orders should the customer require them. On the Typhoon, I know that the Government have given a commitment to tranche 3 upgrades. It is important that those come through in a timely manner so that BAE Systems can manage the work flow. On the unmanned aerial combat vehicle programme, the Government have signed a memorandum of understanding with France. That is hugely important, but we must get it moving quickly so that BAE Systems can plan the workload and allocate people across the programmes.
	Let us not forget that BAE Systems is an incredibly profitable private global defence company. It has made more than £1 billion of profit this year. Therefore, this issue is not just about what the Government are doing, but about ensuring that BAE Systems is doing everything necessary. I would like to sound one note of caution. When BAE Systems is entering into work-share agreements for global deals, it must ensure that it always acts in the interest of the work force, not just in the interests of the shareholders. We must ensure that work that could be done in the UK is done in the UK, as opposed to being exported to other countries. I want BAE Systems to stop and think about that, because it has a commitment to Lancashire and to UK plc.
	Finally, I welcome the enterprise zones that have been identified for Warton and Samlesbury. They can be much more than a sticking plaster. In a meeting that I had with the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference, we got the commitment that UKTI would be fully engaged to ensure that those are not just glorified business parks, but that they attract the very best the world can offer. Yes, there is a tough economic climate, but we have to be ambitious for Lancashire because its people deserve no less. We have a world-class work force who have the full range of skills. We have to go out and sell those sites and that work force—I call on the Minister to help us in this—so that when people invest in the months and years to come, they offer jobs and a future that we can be proud of.

Mark Prisk: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) on securing this debate on an important issue that affects his constituents
	and those of other Members who are in their places, both in Lancashire and across the border at Brough. Of course, it also affects your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Alan Johnson: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Prisk: The geography of the debate does not extend beyond Lancashire, but I will give way briefly.

Alan Johnson: I appreciate that. The Minister will be aware that some of the work going to Samlesbury and Warton is going from the East Riding. Is he also aware that the view of workers at Warton and Samlesbury is that they do not have the capability or capacity to deal with the Hawk? There is suspicion that the Hawk will eventually be built abroad. He will know that I, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and all other local MPs are determined to stop the closure of a plant that has manufactured aerospace equipment for 100 years. Will he agree to consider imaginative proposals, which may include the civil aerospace industry, to keep that manufacturing plant open?

Mark Prisk: I do not want to get ahead of myself on the broader issues, and I will come in a moment to the fact that we are in a 90-day consultation process and the company has to demonstrate a business case. The right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) have made it very clear—rightly so, in my view—that the company has to make that case. I have said that to the work force, and I say it to Members throughout the House. Members, particularly those with the experience that the right hon. Gentleman has, are well placed to challenge that business case. The Government need to ensure that we strike a balance so that we are ready to act if, at the end of the 90 days, it turns out that we have the problems that he has described. I will not get drawn into the pros and cons now, because I will want to see the business case, as will the Secretary of State.
	Before I was interrupted on that important point, I was about to put on record the fact that I want to extend my sympathy to all those affected by the announcement. The Government recognise, and I recognise, the human cost involved in such cuts, and how they affect individuals, families and communities. I fully recognise that BAE Systems is, as the hon. Member for Preston pointed out, one of the largest employers in Lancashire. I am acutely aware of the depth of the local impact that will affect many people.
	I wish to address a number of issues that have been raised. First, the hon. Gentleman referred in his opening remarks to a letter that he had written to the Secretary of State. I have asked my officials to check, and we have no record of receiving such a letter on BAE. We have a record of a letter about supermarkets dated 4 October, but I assume that is not the one. Perhaps at the end of the debate he could give me a copy of the letter so that I can ensure that it goes to the Secretary of State.
	There was quite a lot of party political discussion from the hon. Gentleman, implying that the Government have no interest in the manufacturing industry. I strongly refute that. He did not mention the changes to the tax law to ensure capital allowances, the improved investment
	in the manufacturing advisory service or the changes that we are making through the advanced manufacturing technology and innovation centre, alongside the other work we are doing on aerospace. I hope that we can get the party political banter out of the way and focus on the issue that affects his constituents, but I think he will understand that I am not prepared to ignore remarks suggesting that the Government do not take manufacturing seriously. We do, and I do.
	I now turn to the causes of the problem, and some of the things that the Government intend to do and are already acting on. The company has advised us that the problem was caused principally by changes in key international programmes and the need to remain globally competitive at a time when defence spending in many nations is under huge pressure. We are all well aware that public finances are tight, and defence budgets are not immune. I think even the Opposition Front Benchers understand that. Although a decision of this nature is a commercial issue for the company, it is therefore absolutely right that the Government should do all they can to help those affected.
	I have talked in the past few weeks to Members—including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your role representing your constituents—and they have all understood those concerns. I also had the opportunity to meet workers while I was in Manchester. I re-emphasise that I understand that during the 90-day consultation process, Members and workers will wish to challenge the business case, and rightly so. We will see what the outcome of that is. However, we must ensure that the Government have a plan in place if those redundancies are made, and I should like to set out the practical help available to hon. Members’ constituents.
	The first step is to ensure that the Jobcentre Plus rapid response service is available. It has already offered access to Next Step one-to-one careers advice, which complements the support available from the company. I know from dealing with previous cases how valuable that practical help can be to individuals.
	Secondly, and more broadly—this important question was raised by the hon. Member for Preston and my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies)—how do we ensure that our country does not lose those skills for good? That consideration is why, back in January, the Secretary of State and I established the talent retention team. The intention is that Government and industry ensure that we do not lose those key specialisms, whether in BAE or elsewhere. The team matches the skilled employees who are facing redundancy to vacancies in other companies. I can tell the House that so far, 200 UK companies have registered. Those who have signed up and are recruiting include Rolls-Royce, Siemens, Nissan and Airbus. I understand that several thousand jobs will be listed in the next month.
	Although I appreciate that taking one of those jobs is not a straightforward decision—it might involve commuting or relocation—that system is important, because it will help us to avoid losing those key design, engineering and manufacturing jobs, which are important whether they are in Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle or in Lancashire, which is the subject of this debate.
	The third question, which is just as important, is how we help local economies. On this subject, the Chancellor listened carefully, in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, who argued that there needed to be a kick-start for the locality in addition to help for individuals. That is why last month the Government responded positively by inviting both the Lancashire and the Humber local enterprise partnerships to submit proposals for two new enterprise zones. They are important, because they provide real advantages for areas such as Warton and Salmesbury—and Brough, if I may stretch the geography of Lancashire temporarily.

Graham Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Prisk: I will get to E-Scan in a moment.
	The business rate discount, the retention of the money for a 25-year period, the radical simplification of the planning system and the support to ensure superfast broadband are crucial to enterprise zones, but that there are a couple of aspects of LEPs that I often feel are lost in some of the coverage—the use of tax increment finance to ensure the long-term viability of the zone, and the UKTI support for inward investment and trade opportunities. Given the civil and military nature of aerospace, we are looking to talk to both the Lancashire LEP and the Humber and Hull LEP about those two enhancement aspects, to see whether they can be a core part of the offer.
	One hon. Member asked a question on Typhoon. The four Typhoon partner nations have decided to extend the programme, so that both domestic and export orders can be dealt with in a way that means we can sustain capacity. That means that the programme’s production has slowed; it has not been stopped. Clearly, we must agree that with all partner nations, because it is a partnership project.
	On E-Scan radar, the point is that the Ministry of Defence and the industry are working on an assessment programme. Electronically scanned radar is on-the-edge technology. If we get this right, it will be Europe’s first and only second generation scanned radar. Therefore, we need to think about how it works. The reason why we are not committing on long-term development is that we need to see whether the assessment works in the first place. In my book, that is a sensible pattern to follow. Clearly, we would not have taken that first step had we not seen the opportunity. That is an important leap in capability for the Typhoon, and it could well mean that although there will be tighter pressure on the domestic Typhoon programme, there will be opportunities for better exports in the long term.
	Let me now bring my remarks to a close. I want to assure Members and their constituents that the Government are determined to take all the necessary action both to support individuals and to ensure that the UK’s defence and manufacturing base can prosper over the long term.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.